^ ^0...-^/^ ^ .^\^^/. <^B7- ?,..-<p(3>"^V^-'' , .^•^.^Y^"v" ^^ ^ ^-^y\'"^"'y' ^P^Q^^ ^') ^- IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION ( S ) N0. ?-^ ^ OF 2010 / PETITIONER Goverdhan Murla S/o. Shri Ratan Singh Murla, Aged About SSyears, Occupation- Service, Posted as Patwari at Halka No. 06 Gudsay, Tahsil- Katekalyan, , Distt.- Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chliattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector , Dantewada, Distt.-Dantewada (C.G.) ^" 3. Sub Divisional Officer , ( Revenue) DaNtewada, Distt.- Dantewada (C.G.) ^"" 4. Tahsildar Katekalyan, TahsU- Katekalyan, Distt.- Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA . mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLTR WRST PETITION (S) No. 795 of2010 PETITIONER : GoverdhanMurla. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri,_,I Present: Dr. Sanjeet Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi-i Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Sliri N.N.Roy, Panel La^yer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10ifa day of March, 2010) Wlth the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 30th June, 2009 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner, working as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 65 Gudse, Tahsil Katekalyan, District Dantewada^ has been transfen'ed to Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar, on administrative grounds. However, the petitioner has not yet been relieved tojomthe ncw place ofposting. SM Sharma submits that once the order oftransfer has been passed, it is for the govemment to ensure that it is complied with immediately, He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sreedam Chandra Ghosh v. State ofAssam & others1, m suppost ofhis contentioii that if the order is not complied with, a direction can be issued for enforcement thereof - 2. Sbri Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, submits that ifthe transfer order dated 30th June, 2009 is still in existence and hcis not been complied with, appropriate steps would be taken to comply with the order. 3. Ifthe aforesaicl transfer order is still in existence, the govemment is under an obligation to comply with the same at once. Tlw respondent authorities are accordingly directed to make suitable an'angement withtn a period of four weeks for reliving and allowing the petitioner to join his new place of postmg. 4. With the above direetion and observration, the writ petition is disposed of. 1 (1996)103cc 567 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge