Santosh Kumar Gupta vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that personal difficulties and disablement of an employee should be considered by the government during the transfer process. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in S.K. Naushad Rahaman & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, the Court emphasized the need for a proportional relationship between policy objectives and the means adopted, and that policies must fulfill the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity, and balancing of values, including constitutional values. The Court was inclined to stay the transfer order and granted the petitioner liberty to make a representation before the concerned authorities within four weeks. The respondent authorities were directed to consider this representation within four weeks of its receipt, in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The transfer order was stayed until the representation was decided.

Facts

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Gupta, a Constable in the Excise Department, filed a writ petition challenging his transfer order dated 28.06.2022, issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax (Excise), Chhattisgarh. The transfer was from the office of the Deputy Commissioner Excise, District Raipur, to the office of the Assistant Commissioner Excise, District Rajnandgaon. The petitioner cited personal difficulties, including a kidney disease requiring thrice-weekly dialysis, a past heart attack, and a medical history of paralysis, as grounds for challenging the transfer. He also noted that the Deputy Commissioner Excise, Raipur, had recommended the cancellation of his transfer on 05.07.2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated 28.06.2022, issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax (Excise), is liable to be set aside or modified considering the petitioner's severe medical conditions and personal difficulties, in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the consideration of employee welfare during transfers? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his severe medical conditions, including kidney disease requiring dialysis, a history of heart attack, and paralysis, constitute significant personal difficulties that warrant consideration by the authorities. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S.K. Naushad Rahaman & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, which emphasizes the need for policies to accommodate the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds, ensuring constitutional values are protected. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents/State.