Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5319 (CHH)

HEERA GAVARNA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/686/2025 · 2025-01-24

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:4547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 686 of 2025 1 - Heera Gavarna D/o Shri Tribhan Aged About 44 Years Deputy Collector Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Sectary, G.A.D. Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate For State/Respondents : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a disabled woman. She was appointed as a Deputy Collector in the year 2021 and was posted at District Bemetara. She was transferred from District Bemetara to District Bastar (scheduled area) vide order dated 14.7.2023. Even before completion of normal period of 3 years, she has been transferred to District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (at Sl. No. 46 of the order) vide order dated 17.1.2025. (Annexure P3). Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:27 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and call for the record of this case. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set-aside the order dated 17.01.2025 (ANNEXURE P/3.) and consequent relieving order Dt. 18.01.2025 in interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a divyang. She has only one leg. She is having crutches. She was posted at Bastar, however, she has been transferred to Mohla, Manpur, as such she is seeking quashment of the transfer order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that from perusal of the documents filed along with the writ petition it appears that the petitioner is having only one leg, as such it seems that inadvertently the transfer order has been passed. 5. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, further considering the fact that the petitioner is a disabled person having one leg, the transfer order in respect of the petitioner, who is placed at Sl.No.46 in the impugned transfer order dated 17.1.2025 (Annexure P3), is quashed. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh