KU. ARUNA SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Case NumberWPS/37/2022

Date of Filing29 Dec 2021

Case TypeWPS

Last Hearing--

Court⚖️ Chhattisgarh High Court ↗

State--

City--

Year of Filing2022

Petitioner

KU. ARUNA SAHU

Respondent

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
2-Managing Director
3-Ashok Kumar Netam

KU. ARUNA SAHU filed Case No. WPS/37/2022 in the Chhattisgarh High Court on 29 Dec 2021 against STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and 2-Managing Director. The case was disposed of. 1 order has been issued in this matter.

7JAN 2022
Judgement
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.

37 of 2022 Ku.

Aruna Sahu D/o Bishambhar Ram Sahu, Aged About 33 Years Occupation Deupty Ranger Ravan Range, Raitum Circle Barnawapara Project Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner Versus 1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd Head Office, Office Campus Block A Sector 24 Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.

Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Corporation Ltd Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3.

Ashok Kumar Netam, Ravan Area, Gajradih Circle Barnawapara Project Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.

Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent 1/State: Mr.

Amit Buxy, P.L.

For Respondent No.

2 : Mr.

Suyash Dhar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 07/01/2022 1.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was working as a Ranger at 2 Ravan area Raitum Circle, has been transferred on 11/11/2021 (Annexure P/1) to Aarang area Lohardih Circle.

He submits that petitioner's father is being treated in Raipur and request was made by the petitioner to keep her at the earlier place of posting so that she can get her father treated, but instead the petitioner has been transferred.

It is further submitted that respondent No.

3 Ashok Kumar Netam has been given the additional charge of Ravan area Raitum Circle and no other person has been appointed therein, therefore, no prejudice would be caused and the transfer may be stayed.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.

2 would submit that petitioner is working in the same place since 06/12/2012 and she has been placed at better place.

Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition.

4.

Considering the facts of this case, petitioner is given the liberty to make representation to respondent No. ondent No.

2 within a period of seven days which may be decided within a further period of 30 days.

If such representation is made and it is not decided within the timeframe as stated above, transfer of the petitioner shall not be given effect to till the said representation is decided.