^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrlt Appeaj No.360 of 2010 APPELLANT P.N. Nayak, aged 52 years, S/o iate Shri K.P. Nayak, working as Asslstant Grade - !!, at District Mining Office, Kanker, District Kanker (CG) Versus RESPOMDENTS: 2. State of Chhattlsgarh, Through The Secretary, IVIining Resources Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Kartik Ram Sahu, Assistant Grade- li, District Mining Office, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri R.K. Kesharwani, counsel forthe appelSant. Shri V.V.S. Murty. Deputy Advocate General for the State. Dlvlsion Bench' Hon'bie Shrl Dhirendra Mijshra& Hori'bie Shri R.h2. ChandraRar. JJ. JU.DGMENT (25-10-2010) The followlng judgment of the Court was delivered by Dfiirenctra • Mishra,J. l. The appeiiant, who was working as Assistant Grade-tl in the District Minlng Office, Kanker, was transferred to Ralpur vide order dated 9-7-2010 and respondent No-2 wa? transferred in his place from Raipur vide Annexure-P/2, However, respondents amending "rts earlier order dated 9-7-2010, vide order dated 23-9-2010, cancelled the transfer order of the appellant and respondent No.2 The appellant's writ petltion agalnst the order of canceJiatlon has been djsmissed by the impugned order. •2. Learned counsel for the appeilant submitted th?.t the appeilant could not compiy with the transfer order because as per transfer poitey of the Govemment, he could not be re!leved until his successor joined in his place. The Co!!ector, North Baster had requested the Collector, Raipur for relieving u/^^ ^ Bar^e respondent No.2 so that the appetlant could comply wjth the order of his transfer, even then respondent No 2 was not relieved and as a consequence, the appellant could aiso not be relieved. The appellant has already sen/ed more than 5 years in the scheduled area and as per transfer policy of the State Govemment; the appellant was entltled to be posted in other than scheduted area at his optlon. However, the order of cancellation of transfer has been passed wlthout there being any adminjstrative exjgency, just to accommodate respondent No.2 at Ralp.ur. 3, Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the Impugned order as ajso pleadings ofthe appellant and documents annexed wlth the petltion. 4 The writ petjtlon has been dismlssed with an observation that there is nothlng on record to suggest that transfer order was cancelled at the instance of respondent No.2. The transfer order could not. be given effect to for a long period and if the appeilant was aggrieved for not being relieved by the concemed authorlty at KanRer, he ought to have approached this Court eartier. 5 We are in agreement with the finding recordsd by the jearned SingJe Judge whi'e dismjssing the writ petitlon and we find no substance In this writ appeal, the same deserves to' be and is hereby dismlssed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge