[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
K. R. Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 May, 2025
1
Digitally signed by NADIM
MOHLE
Date: 2025.05.30 16:07:56
+0530
2025:CGHC:22466
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3931 of 2025
K. R. Kashyap S/o Late Harinath Kashyap Aged About 60 Years Working As
Assistant Veterinary Field Officer At Mobile Veterinary Unit, Jagdalpur,
Block-Jagadalpur, District - Baster At Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education
Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector Baster, District - Baster At Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh
3 - Dy. Director Veterinary Service, Jagdalpur, District - Baster At Jagdalpur
Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajiv Bharat, Government
Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
29/05/2025
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking
the following relief(s):-
2
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by
the respondent No.-2.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue to issue any other writ /order/ direction as deem
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the
impugned order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by
respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner, who is
presently posted at Mobile Veterinary Unit, Jagdalpur, have been
attached to the Animal Dispensary, Ghotiya, Block Bastar.
3. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order
of Attachment dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
respondent No.-2, whereby services of the petitioner has been
attached from present place of posting i.e. Mobile Veterinary Unit,
Jagdalpur Block-Jagdalpur to Animal Dispensary Ghotiya, Block-
Baster. He would further submit that respondent No.-2 attached
service of the petitioner out of Block- Jagdalpur, this action of the
respondent No.-2 is against policy/order of the State Government.
He would also submit that services of the similarly situated
petitioner/employee namely, Dayanath Kashyap (Head Master) was
attached vide order dated 14.03.2024 by the District Education
Officer, Bastar, and directed him to work at Middle School Bodli,
Lohandiguda. The petitioner (Dayanath Kashyap) preferred writ
3
petition (service) and the Co-Ordinate Bench while deciding the issue
of the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition treating the impugned
order of attachment as transfer order. Thereafter, a Writ appeal was
preferred and the Hon’ble Division Bench while deciding the matter
(Dayanath Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) (WA
No.413/2024, dated 10.07.2024) and other connected matters, set
aside the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench whereby the order
of attachment was interpreted as transfer order and respondent
authorities were directed to re-consider the claim of the writ
appellant; thus, he would pray that the instant writ petition may be
disposed of in the light of judgment rendered in Dayanath Kashyap
(supra).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned
order is not a routine administrative order but an attachment order
which effectively shifts the petitioner outside his original block, i.e.,
Jagdalpur.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Bharat, learned Government Advocate
submits that the petitioner was merely directed to perform his duties
at the Animal Dispensary, Ghotiya, due to administrative exigencies
and it does not amount to attachment or transfer. It is further argued
that such directions fall within the domain of the competent
authority, and no illegality has been committed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
4
documents placed on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was originally posted at Mobile Veterinary
Unit, Jagdalpur, within Block Jagdalpur. The impugned order dated
05.05.2025 directs the petitioner to perform his duties at Animal
Dispensary, Ghotiya, which falls under Block Bastar.
8. The Hon’ble Division Bench while dealing with similar issue in the
matter of Dayanath Kashyap (supra), held that such attachment
orders cannot be treated as transfer orders. The relevant paras 9, 10
& 11 are reproduced as under:-
“09.From the perusal of the impugned transfer orders,
which have been challenged by the appellants in their
respective writ petitions before the learned Single
Judge, it transpires that they seem to be attachment
orders and not the transfer orders and the learned
Single Judge, misinterpreted the said fact and while
disposing of the aforesaid writ petitions, has directed
that if the petitioners are not relieved, they will not be
relieved till 4th June, 2024 thereafter, they will be
deemed to have been relieved and will join transferred
post immediately.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
taking into account that the impugned transfer orders
seem to be attachment orders and not the transfer
orders, the aforementioned impugned orders passed by
the learned Single Judge in respective writ petitions as
well as the impugned transfer orders dated 14.03.2024
and 15.03.2024 issued by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are
set aside qua the aforesaid appellants.
11. The respondent authorities are directed to re-
consider the claim of the appellants in accordance with
law preferably within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
9. Vide impugned order dated 05.05.2025, the respondent
5
No.2/Collector has passed the following order:-
“विभागीय कार्य को सुचारू रूप से सम्पन्न करने की दृष्टि से नीचे दर्शाये
गए निम्नलिखित कर्मचारियों को उनके नाम के सम्मुख स्तम्भ चार में
दर्शाये रिक्त संस्था में आगामी आदेश तक कार्य करने हेतु निर्देशित
किया जाता है।”
10. The Chhattisgarh Government vide its circular
No.4025/2001/G.A.D./9, Raipur dated 04.06.2001 in para 3.1 issued
following order:-
“3.1 किसी अधिकारी/कर्मचारी की उनकी मूल पदस्थापना के स्थान से
अन्यत्र संलग्नीकरण नहीं किया जावे ।”
11. In the present case, the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure
P/1) passed by respondent No.2/Collector reveals that the petitioner has
been directed to work in another place mentioned against his name “till
further orders,” purportedly for smooth conduct of departmental work.
It is evident from the language of the impugned order that the same
amounts to an attachment order, whereby the services of the petitioner
are placed in another place. However, the Government of Chhattisgarh,
vide its circular No.4025/2001/GAD/9 dated 04.06.2001, has categorically
directed in Clause 3.1 that no officer/employee shall be attached from
their original place of posting to any other place. Further, the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Dayanath Kashyap
(supra) has held that “the impugned transfer orders seem to be
6
attachment orders and not the transfer order” and set-aside the
order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench and order of attachment in
respect to the writ appellants.
12. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts in light of the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in
the matter of Dayanath Kashyap (supra) & the circular issued by the
Government of Chhattisgarh, vide circular No.4025/2001/GAD/9
dated 04.06.2001, this Court is of the view that the impugned order
dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
The impugned order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by
respondent No.2, is hereby set aside in respect of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Vacation Judge
Nadim
[ad_2]
Source link