Sameer Talloo vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Ms. Saumya Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7056 of 2022.

The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:

“1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order of transfer dated 30.09.2022, whereby, petitioner who is posted as Data Entry Operator and posted at Mahant Sarveshwar Das, Library, Raipur C.G., is transferred to District Archaeological Museum, Jagdalpur, C.G.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has raised multiple grounds in the writ petition challenging his transfer including medical grounds of his parents and his younger brother. However, she submits that as the State Government has constituted a Committee under the Transfer Policy dated 12.08.2022 for consideration of grievance of State Government employees against their transfers, at this stage, petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation before the Committee and the concerned Committee be directed to consider and decide the representation at the earliest within specific time frame.

Learned State counsel submits that he is having no objection on the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for petitioner and the limited prayer, which is not opposed by learned State counsel, this writ petition stands dispose of at this stage, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation raising all grounds as raised in this writ petition before the Committee constituted under the Transfer policy dated 12.08.2022, within a period of 02 weeks from today and if such a representation is filed, the concerned Committee is directed to decide the same, expeditiously preferably within an outer limit of 03 weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

Certified copy as per rules.”

Ms. Sharma submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in not passing an order of stay of the order of transfer till such time the representation was disposed of and therefore, her limited prayer is that till such time the representation is decided, the order of transfer dated 30.09.2022 may be stayed. In support of her prayer, she has also placed before the Court an order dated 01.09.2022 passed by this Court in WA No. 447 of 2022 (Nand Kumar Daharia vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Other).

Ms. Shukla submits that petitioner had implemented the order of the learned Single Judge by filing a representation dated 10.11.2022 and later on, after filing of such representation, this appeal is filed. Therefore, on the principle of approbate and reprobate, this writ appeal ought not to be entertained, she submits.

She has further submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge came to be passed on the basis of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it does not reflect from the order of the learned Single Judge that any such submission for stay of the order of transfer during the pendency of the representation, as made before this Court, was made. In that view of the matter, she submits that this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

She also submits that the judgment Nand Kumar Daharia (supra) is distinguishable in facts and reasons for granting stay in the said case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

We find substance in the argument of Ms. Shukla.

The factual matrix in Nand Kumar Daharia (supra) is not akin to the factual matrix in this case as a perusal of the order passed in Nand Kumar Daharia (supra) would go to show that in the said case a direction was issued by the learned Single Judge for filing of a representation, which is not the case in the instant case. In this case, it is the counsel for the petitioner, who had voluntarily made a submission for enabling the petitioner to file a representation before the Committee and, therefore, the submission of Ms. Sharma that this case is identical to Nand Kumar Daharia (supra) is misplaced. It does not appear from the order of the learned Single Judge that any prayer for stay was made. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted a representation on 10.11.2022 pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge directed disposal of the representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and therefore, the representation is to be disposed of in terms of the direction of the learned Single Judge on or before 01.12.2022, as three weeks from the submission of representation expires on 01.12.2022.

For all these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.