Scribd
Upload
42 views3 pages

Display PDF

The High Court of Chhattisgarh is hearing a case regarding Hemsagar Gupta's transfer to a scheduled area after he has already served there for three years. The petitioner argues that the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 is unlawful and disrupts his ongoing education, while the State contends that the transfer is justified. The court has temporarily stayed the transfer order and any relieving order until the next hearing scheduled for the week of 24.02.2025.

Uploaded by

pankaj golchha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views3 pages

Display PDF

The High Court of Chhattisgarh is hearing a case regarding Hemsagar Gupta's transfer to a scheduled area after he has already served there for three years. The petitioner argues that the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 is unlawful and disrupts his ongoing education, while the State contends that the transfer is justified. The court has temporarily stayed the transfer order and any relieving order until the next hearing scheduled for the week of 24.02.2025.

Uploaded by

pankaj golchha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Digitally

VISHAKHA signed by
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
BEOHAR

1/3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 590 of 2025

Hemsagar Gupta Versus State Of Chhattisgarh

Order Sheet

22/01/2025 Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Neelima Singh, P.L. for the State.

Heard on admission as well as on I.A. No.01, application for

grant of interim relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that again and

again, the petitioner has been transferred to scheduled area

though he has served in the scheduled area for about three years.

He submits that vide transfer order dated 28.09.2016, he was

posted at Bijapur, thereafter, vide order dated 20.08.2019, he was

transferred to Raipur and again, vide order dated 15.01.2025, he

has been transferred to Govt. Co-Ed Polytechnic College, Sukma

on administrative basis. As such, according to the policy of the


2/3

State Government also, the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 is not

in accordance with law. It is further submitted that no one has

been transferred in place of the petitioner and the petitioner was

allowed to pursue his [Link] course with due permission of the

respondent department, as such, it would be difficult for him to

leave Raipur while leaving his education also.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that after

three years, the petitioner has been transferred to an non-

scheduled area and now there is no impediment that he cannot be

transferred to a scheduled area. He submits that since the

petitioner has been relieved also, as such, no case is made out for

stay also.

Upon this, when the petitioner was enquired, he submits that

the relieving order has not been served to him and ex-parte

relieving order has been passed on 20.01.2025.

Since, Ms. Neelima Singh, P.L. appears on behalf of all the

respondents, therefore, issuance of notice is not required. She is

directed to file appropriate reply within a period of four weeks.

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, purely as an

interim measure, it is directed that the effect and operation of the


3/3

impugned transfer order dated 15.01.2025 with respect to the

petitioner and if any ex-parte relieving order is passed against the

petitioner, that shall also remain stayed till the next date of

hearing.

List the matter in the week commencing 24.02.2025.

sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)


Judge

Vishakha

You might also like