LAWS(CHH)-2011-11-53

DHANMAD SAI DEHARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On November 04, 2011
DHANMAD SAI DEHARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent No.4, whereby, the representation of the petitioner to quash the transfer order dated 01.01.2011 was rejected.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, working as Station House Officer in Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, was transferred to District Bijapur by order dated 01.01.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(S) No.78/2011 (Shri Dhanmad Sai Dehari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) (Annexure P-6). This Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation, on his request, to consider his case under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007. It was further observed that in the event, the representation is made, the same should be considered and decided within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Further, if the petitioner has not been relieved pursuant to the order dated 01.01.2011, he may not be relived till his representation is considered and decided by the Board.

(3.) SHRI Otwani, further submits that the brother-in-law of the petitioner was killed by naxalites in the year 2007, as is evident from the FIR (Annexure P-4). It is further submitted that under the transfer policy dated 01.04.2006 issued by the Home (Police) Department, clause 6(i) clearly provides that if a Sub Inspector or Inspector has served ten years satisfactorily in the naxalite affected areas, the next posting may be done in one, out of two ranges desired by the concerned Sub Inspector or Inspector. The petitioner has served for more than ten years without any protest, thus, the posting should be on his choice in one of the two ranges selected by him. SHRI Otwani, next submits that the widow sister of the petitioner is also dependent upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also not been communicated a reasoned rejection order.