Rajkumar Kashyap vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned respondent authorities within two weeks, detailing his personal difficulties and grievances. Upon receipt of the representation, the respondent authorities are mandated to consider and decide it in accordance with the Government's policy within two months from the date of receipt. The decision-making process must take into account the Supreme Court's observations in S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others, emphasizing the need for proportionality, legitimacy, suitability, necessity, and balancing of values, including constitutional values under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21. The transfer order is stayed until the representation is decided. The Court did not decide the merits of the transfer order itself but provided a procedural direction for its reconsideration.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajkumar Kashyap, a Head Constable in the Excise Department, filed a writ petition challenging a transfer order dated June 29, 2022, issued by the Under Secretary (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner was transferred from Janjgir-Champa to Raigarh. He submitted that his family members are undergoing significant medical treatment. His wife is suffering from Anemia Rheumatoid Arthritis, his son was hospitalized for 22 days due to a broken leg bone from an accident, and his daughter-in-law is under observation for a head injury. These medical issues are supported by documentary evidence. The petitioner requested liberty to make a representation to the authorities, which should be considered and decided within two months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated June 29, 2022, issued by the Under Secretary, is arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights, considering his family's medical conditions? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of administrative law and potentially Article 14 of the Constitution). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the transfer order should be set aside due to his family's severe medical conditions, supported by medical documents. He relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022 (S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others) to argue for a consideration of compassionate grounds and the need for a proportional relationship between policy objectives and implementation. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents/State regarding the merits of the transfer or the petitioner's medical grounds.