Tek Bahadur Kurre vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Tek Bahadur Kurre, an Assistant District Excise Officer, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 10, 2025, issued by the Collector, Raipur. The petitioner was posted at Circle Civil Line, Raipur, and also held additional charges. He contended that his place of posting was changed to accommodate respondent No. 5, Altaf Karim Khan, who was given contractual employment after retirement. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and be allowed to continue his duties at Circle Civil Line, Raipur, with his additional charge. The respondents, represented by the State Counsel, argued that the petitioner had not first submitted a representation to the concerned authority against the impugned order.

Held

The Court, considering the submissions of both parties, disposed of the writ petition without entering into the merits of the petitioner's claim. The Court permitted the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to respondent No. 3 (Collector, Raipur) against the impugned order dated 10.12.2025. The representation should raise all grounds mentioned in the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt, in accordance with the law. No specific finding was made on the legality of the transfer order itself, as the matter was remitted for consideration by the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, issued by the Collector, Raipur, changing the petitioner's place of posting, is legally sustainable, particularly in light of the petitioner's contention that it was done to accommodate a contractual employee (respondent No. 5)? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his transfer was impermissible as it was made to accommodate respondent No. 5, who had retired and was subsequently given contractual employment. He sought the quashing of the order and permission to continue his duties at his current posting with additional charge. Revenue/State's Contention: The State Counsel contended that the petitioner had directly filed the writ petition without first submitting a representation to the authority concerned against the impugned order.