EMANUVEL TOPPO Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the transfer order on the ground that unless there is a compliant, the petitioner could not be transferred in view of the transfer policy dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure P/4).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 8 of the policy is to be read in a manner to mean that transfer of Panchayat Karmi is permissible only on the ground of complaint or on his own request or in administrative exigency. It is further submitted that earlier, this Court had directed for consideration of case in the light of the policy of transfer, but the respondents have not considered anything and rejected the representation mechanically. It is next contended that the order of transfer was passed by the Deputy Director, whereas under the policy, transfers are required to be made by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. No other ground was urged.

(3.) A comprehensive policy has been framed in respect of Panchayat Karmi service conditions vide Circular dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure P/4). This is an administrative policy which contains policy of transfer also as embodied in para 8 of the circular. The relevant provision reads as below :