DHANUSH SINGH NETAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second round of litigation. The petitioner, who is working as Sub Divisional Officer, has been transferred from Sub-Division No.II Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar to Sub-Division Dornapal vide order dated 17.08.2019 which was under challenge in first round of litigation i.e., WPS No.6669 of 2019 wherein this Court on 30.08.2019 has passed the following order :

(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner has filed representation but the same has been decided on the ground that since the petitioner has not filed any application that he should be transferred from scheduled area, therefore, he is not kept out of scheduled area. It is contended that factually the averments are wrong in view of Annexure P-8, which shows that the petitioner has made an application in 2008 to transfer him out of scheduled area as he spent considerable time in scheduled area. It is further submitted that the brother of petitioner has died in a blast of Naxalite and as such the petitioner has prayed to be transferred to the non-scheduled area and as per the Transfer Policy of the State, normally the persons who are more than 55 years of age, are not transferred to the Core Scheduled Area. It is further submitted that the petitioner has spent more than 27 years in the scheduled area, therefore, he being more than 55 years, should not be transferred to core scheduled area.

(3.) During the course of arguments, the petitioner has relied on relevant part of Chhattisgarh Hand Book, which contains the Instructions relating to Transfer Policy and would submit that as per Clause 1.5 transfer policy, normally the persons who have already spent in scheduled area for a considerable period are being transferred to non-scheduled area and the persons who are more than 55 years of age are not to be posted in core scheduled area. He further referred to the order dated 28.12.2008 passed by the Additional Secretary, P.W.D. vide Annexure P-7 on a representation of another person namely Santosh Kumar Sonwani and would submit that on similar ground, the transfer of the said person was considered whereas the case of the petitioner has been put to discrimination. Referring to the Transfer Policy, he placed reliance in order dated 07.01.2020 passed by this Court in WPS No.27/2020 and would submit that under the circumstances, the transfer of th petitioner ought to be cancelled. Clauses 1.5 & 2.5 of the Transfer Policy would be relevant here and quoted below :