© IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR WmT PBTITION N0. ^^lf PETITTQNER ^' (% (\ ./^ ../••"^" ^••^t''.. €:Sk" >'c^^ y^' Y.K.Shukla, about 41 yeai's, S/o. Stiri P.K.Shukla, working as Sub-Engineer, Rural Eiiguieeririg Service (RES) Office of Janpad Panchayat Nagai^ ^Sihava)) Di.stt. Dhamtari (C.G.).^ Versus RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat Evam Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Development Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (C,G.) 3) The Executive Engineer, Departnient uf Rural Engineering Service, Office of the Comniissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF XI-HC-22 3?n^T^FT [<'ii4>3T^sr $»»*<icn«{^a ^^ -3^-^Tq^PT, •^t'OT?, faCTwy sni^ 'q^? 0^^o^-12-lt-l6s *(l*«yll^^j^—•——••—•—••w w"m^^ ^g ^S^f' ^fli^T'^II^'^fel transtfer 15.9.2004 - - Smt. Fouzia AAirza, counse! Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Deputy respondents. Heard both the counsei. By this petition under Articie petitioner has questioned his Deputy SecretQry, ©overnmehtof Vibhag, Chhattisgarh, has transfer? Di^trict: Dhanitdri tp Fingeshwar/Djs'| The petitioner is workin9 as ^ Engineering Service. The case of th^ hoSQppointed the petitioner to funci Year PIan, which commenced t^ith eff( therefore, he. ought to-have been c Therc are ©overnmentorgders that t| HariyaSl Pariyojana shouid not be petitioner submits that the petitionej thcrcfor^, on these two 9rounds, hi3 ev€na representation ogoinst the the petitioner, but thot has not respondents, Havlng heard the iearned cou? the facts and circunistances of th< for{ the-petitioner. &overnment Advocate for the State/ <abl*lldi^4; *t^mE^lfo<3 <^rt$;^ '^^^I^il^F S26/227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 17.8.2004, whereby the Ch{iQttisgarh/Panchayat Evam ©r^minVikas |ed; the petitioner .from Nagari SihavQ, "ict? Raipur. ub-Engincer In the &epartment of RurQi petitjoner is that the respondent State |on under the 'Hariyoli PariyoJQna', a Five sct from 2.12.2003 as per Annexure P-1, |owed to continue ther-e for flve years. ie empioyees who ar-e workin9 under the Iransferred. Learned counsei for the "'s wife is also workin9 at N090?! Sihava, 'ansfer is bad. She furtaher submit^ thot tra|isfer taking these grounds was mode by .been considered and deaded by the n^el fpr the parties ond having regard to case, the respondentSGre directed to ^ XI-HC-22 ^il^T'SFT f<'l[<=h sft+iion ^ff^r \ " ^'\ ^•acf <<iNi<n^,'grat^^ f^iray ^tl*l€fll ^bNlcb 3n^?T xRra? ^O^ <0o 2-SZ^I ^t. 200 t^ar' 3TT^'^ffW^f^T decide the representation ciSreGdy m polnt^ rdsed by hirrs within a period o< copy of this order. TiJI the declsion already not relieved should not be rei WIth the above directions, thc Conssquentiy, M.(W.)P.No.249. disposed or Parties are entjtied for cerfifi chnl<yt<llt *iw<yff^ ^^ <f^t^i< '^^?NFT3n^r |ade by the petitioner con^idering ai! the f three weeks fromthe date of rcceipt of of the representatjon, the petitioner, if ieved. petition stands disposed of. V2004 and I.A.No.6156/2004 aiso stand ^ copy of:thls order.'l Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge