1 2025:CGHC:21256-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 750 of 2024 Smt. Manisha Gore W/o. Late Shri Yogesh Gore, aged about 49 years, R/o. A-03, Krishna Vihar Colony, Koni Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Telecommunication, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001. 2 - Chief Post Master General Chhattisgarh Region, Raipur (C.G.) 492001. 3 - Chief Personal General, Chhattisgarh Circle Office, Raipur (C.G.) 492001. 4 - Superintendent of Post Offices, Bilaspur Postal Division, Bilaspur (C.G.). 5 - Senior Post Master Raipur GPO, Raipur (C.G.). 6 - Saurabh Kumar Asathi, Assistant Director (Staff), Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur (C.G.) 492001. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Saleem Kazi, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 5. : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, D.S.G. along with Mr. Neeraj Baghel, CGC. For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Kaustubh Singh Thakur, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J. Order on Board Per, Sachin Singh Rajput,J. 08.05.2025 1. This petitioner has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- “(1) This Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to call for the records pertaining to the instant matter. (2) This Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to set- aside the impugned order rejecting the interim relief application dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P/1); and may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to let the petitioner continue her service in the present place of posting i.e. Bilaspur; or be pleased to transfer the respondent no. 6 from Raipur to anywhere else, till the matter reaches to its logical end. (3) This Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to direct the respondents to provide personal opportunity of hearing and to consider all the issues raised in the complaint by the petitioner by properly constituting an Internal Complaint Committee and not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner; (4) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take the lodged complaint to its logical end within a time-bound period; (5) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order(s) as it deems fit, in the interest of justice.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint for harassment at the work place was moved by the petitioner against the respondent No. 6 which was not duly considered by the competent authority. He further submits that according to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the respondent No. 6 has constituted the committee and if the constitutional committee was made by respondent No. 6 itself, then definitely they would be under the influence of respondent No. 6 and the petitioner would not be able to get any justice from such committee. He submits that an application of interim relief was also filed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was wrongly been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the interim application has rightly been rejected by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. He further submits that the committee in the light of Act of 2013 has been constituted vide memo No. STA 1-9/Corr./MG/260 dated 17.04.2025 having four members from different departments. If any grievance of the petitioner subsists, she may make a complaint before the committee so constituted. He further submits that the petitioner is not approaching to the committee and until and unless the petitioner approaches, her grievances cannot be redressed. He 4 further submits that the original application filed by the petitioner is also not filed along with this writ petition. Therefore, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.06.2024. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including impugned order. 5. Surprisingly, copy of the original application filed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal has not been filed. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal reflects as under:- “It would be evident from the record that the applicant has been served with a charge memo on 31.05.2024. Thereafter, on 01.06.2024, the applicant made a complaint against the officer (Respondent No.6), who has given him the charge sheet dated 31.05.2024. It is seen from the order dated 21.03.2024 that the applicant has been attached to Division Office, Bilaspur with a remark that the attachment is on temporary basis for the period of three months and will not be extended at any circumstances. It is also clear from the record that the applicant was also absent for a period of 51 days without any prior sanction of leave and that period has been declared as dies-non by respondent No. 6. After going through the records it is found that on 31.05.2024 respondent No. 6 served the applicant with a charge memo and on 01.06.2024 the applicant made a complaint of sexual harassment against respondent No. 6. The applicant has never challenged the charge memo as well as the dies-non order in this case except only praying for action against respondent No. 6 Therefore, looking to the above and the sequence of events, we are not inclined to grant any interim relief at this stage. Hence the same is rejected.” 6. After considering the material available on record we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. As such, it is appropriate to request the learned Central Administrative 5 Tribunal to expedite the hearing on O.A. No. 544/2024 and dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a period of 03 months from the next date of hearing. We are also inclined to grant liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise her grievances before the committee constituted if she so desires. 7. Thus, the petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge U.K. Raju