^ c^ (^l 0 WTSSSON9Bl^B SIGBCOURT0P CffSATTSSQARH JIWJCATOKB AT BX^ASPWt W^.fSf No. t^ /2010 PSTXTfONSK: ^••"^i ^<^w \°.Ky>xv^->" ^".^ ^y\ ^^" ^-- RBSPONDBNT8: ;- Dr Piyush Jain S/o Shri Padam Chand Jain Aged about 36 years OccupaUon- Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Motorcycle Unit Tokapal Dist-Bastar( C.G.) VSR8U8 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary , Department of Agriculture (Veterinary) MantralayOf D.K.S. Bhawan, RaipurfC.G.) -'' 2. Joint Director Veterinary Services Dist- Bastar (C.G) (3 WKfT PJBTJTJOW VNOKR AKTXCiK 226/227 OF TfIS CONBTSTVTSOH Of IWMA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR wmr PETHTON fsy NQ. 1067 of2010 PETmONER : Dr. Piyush Jain. -^- • , VERSU8 RE8PONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh &ariother. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmJTION OE INDIA ; - " ' . 1"'^: •,"r: SB: Hon'ble Shri SatishK.Aenihotri,J. Present: Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate for tfae petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer fbr fhe State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 10th day of March, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 29.06.2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at Motor Cycle Unit, Tokapal, District Bastar, District Bastar, has been transfeired to Veterinary Hospital, Farasgaon, wifliin the saiiie district on admmistFative grounds. 2. Ms. Pandey, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner subm^ against the afbresaid transfer order, the petitioner has made. a representation to the Secretary, Agricultere (Animal Husbandry) Department oa 26.7.20Q9and 11.11.2009 (AimexureP/4 cblly.), wliich are still pending cotisideration. 3. On query fix)m Ae leamed State cpimsel asto wfay the represe^ is not being decided, leamed State counset submits that fmm of the documents, it is not clear asto whetiier^^^ represeirtations amiexed to fhe petition have been made to the respondent authorities as it does notbear any endorsement. However, inthe event, ifitis foundfhatthe [H^ petitioner has made any such representation, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. 4. Since it is the obligation ofthe State autiiorities to consider and decide the representations made by the employees, it is directed that m the event it ii. fbund that the petitioner has . made the aforesaid representations, the respondent authorities may consider and decide fhe same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable time, may be wifhin a period of six weeks froni the date of receipt ofa copy ofthis order. 5. With the aforesaid observation aiid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Ainit Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge "^,. u -.