AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
20 paragraphs · 378 wordsP. Sam Koshy, J
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.09.2018 (Annexure P/1) whereby the services of the petitioner has been transferred from Kanker
to Jashpur.
The challenge to the impugned order is on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner has been recently sent to Kanker only by order dated 08.06.2018 and
the petitioner having joined the said place on 14.06.2018 and less than about three months time the petitioner has been now shifted from Kanker to
Jashpur which is entirely different direction and distance between the two places is more than 600 Kms. The second ground raised is that after having
joined at Kanker, the petitioner was given the election duties and once the petitioner has been given election duties, the services of the petitioner
comes under the Election Commission and the petitioner under said circumstances could not have been transferred.
The counsel for the State however submits that the order dated 08.06.2018 was only giving additional charge to the petitioner at Kanker and
substantially he must have been at Raipur itself and therefore the first ground raised by the petitioner of the present order being a case of frequent
transfer may not be a substantial ground for the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner rebuts the same on the ground that the order impugned itself shows that the order has been made transferring the
petitioner from Kanker to Jashpur and it is not from Raipur to Jashpur. He further submits that even the petitioner is drawing his salary from Kanker.
Further, had he not been posted at Kanker, he would not have been granted election duties.
In view of the above submissions made by the parties, let the petitioner make a detailed representation in addition to the representation dated
12.09.2018 within a period of 10 days from today and the respondent No.1 shall scrutinize the entire contents which the petitioner would raise in his
representation, so also the observations made in this order, and thereafter pass a suitable order on the representation of the petitioner at the earliest.
Meanwhile, the respondents shall be restrained from giving effect to the impugned order dated 10.09.2018 (Annexure P/1) so far as the petitioner is
concerned.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.