Sheela Dhritlahre vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the place of posting where the petitioner has been transferred and the subsequent

development that have transpired.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that for almost more than an year the petitioner has not received any salary from the department. The

petitioner was originally transferred vide order dated 21.08.2019 transferring her from district office Baloda Bazar to the district office Sukma. The

petitioner preferred a writ petition i.e. WPS No.6680 of 2019 which got disposed of on 02.09.2019 permitting the petitioner to make a representation

which in turn the respondents were required to be decided. The respondents themselves during the pendency of initial period of suspension stayed the

transfer of the petitioner to Sukma till the departmental enquiry was concluded. Subsequently the departmental enquiry got concluded and the

petitioner was inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 13.08.2020. Subsequent to the

culmination of the departmental enquiry and imposition of the punishment the petitioner was ordered to be relieved to give her joining at Sukma.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has various physical ailments which would come in the way of normal discharge of the

duties and also would come in the way if the petitioner is forced to join the office at Sukma which is a far of place from the present place of posting

particularly taking note of the fact that the place where the petitioner has been posted is a scheduled area and also highly inflicted with Naxalite

problems. It is also the contention of the petitioner that there are large number of vacancies available under the respondents in the nearby location

where the petitioner could had been easily accommodated. Lastly it was contended that at a later stage when the petitioner went to give her joining at

district office at Sukma the authorities at Sukma refused to accept her joining and as of now the petitioner is left with no office to discharge her duties

and as a consequence the petitioner also is not getting salary for last over a year.

Under the circumstances, the petitioner makes a request that the writ petition at this juncture be disposed of directing the respondent authorities to

redress the grievance of the petitioner at the earliest.

To this limited prayer, the State counsel does not have any objection. However, the State counsel submits that the contentions of the petitioner are

one which have to be verified and factual informations have to be collected from the respective offices both in respect of her claim of having given

her joining at Sukma and also in respect of the fact whether she has been paid her salary and other dues or not.

Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to look into the

grievance of the petitioner and to take appropriate steps in resolving the same in accordance with rules and regulations governing the field both in

respect of the alleged contention of the petitioner of her not being given joining at Sukma and also in respect of her claim of unpaid salary for almost

an year now.

Let the respondent No.2 take an appropriate decision in this regard including necessary instructions for giving her the joining, at the earliest

preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.