/ IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION No.4^S/ OF 2005. ^y RESPONDENTS PETITIONER y, ^>1 1^y..' J^/^^ ^^ ^y r,x^ .>^'\^-^l»»r>/ ^y^^ '•' ^- cus.^ w ^3. 4. ^ V.K. CHANDRAKAE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SON OF SHRI D.R. CHANDRAKAR, RESIDENT OF C/0. YUVRAJSINGH CHANDRAKAR, VILLAGE AND POST ARJUNDA, DISTT. DURG (CHHATTISGARH) ] VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) THE COLLECTOR, DISTT. DURG (CHHATTISGARHj THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, DISTT. DURG (C.G.) C.P. SHARMA, AFISHERIES INSPECTOR, GUNDERDEHI, BLOCK, DISTRICT DURGfC.G.) Ihili ';":^^,SS^^&SSMsffW~3^ 0< WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE. 226/227 OFTHE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-78 MVd <-«tKtl««,W^lwK?^ RoKiiyt 31 WTBFT^'ff^ IA/.P. 4<-6e) 3IRtn'TO^^4ct(^*Ei) airt3T!IiTR'fitb craTan^nd>*fi* ''Efc ?<<iraR^ifta SD^CT <blO{d<B''f*ti1dT'fl<»^t(lui»sit i&ari^ian^'T " ' )unsel for the petitidner. Lawyerforthe State. pissently working on the post of Distnct-Durg has beeu transferred 07.10.3005 i W.P.No. 4691/20Q5 Shri Vinod Deshinukh, c) Shri Vivek Sharma, PaEie| Heard. The petitioner who is Fislieries Inspector atArjuiidaj froin'Arjuiida Block-Guliderd4hi, District- Durg to Block-Saja, Distnct-Dur^ vide impugBJed order of transfer dated 31.8.2005(Amiexure P- 1). Leamed counsel for ftie |petitioner submits that respoadent No.4 is wprking at fh.e same ]|>lace for fhe last 20 years, but the petitioner has been chosen fo^ transfer, leaving respondent No.4. He also submifs that thei^ are uiaay coinplamts agaiast respondent No.4, but the rej authorities of the State aiid tl|ie petitioner has beeh subjected to traasfer. He farther subinits ^iatthe aforesaid traasfer is agaiast the traiisfer-policy of fhe Stat^. The copy of traiisfer poUcy has been filed as Aiuiexure P-3. Leamed couiisel for ty present, thls petition uiay be| petitioner to file a detailed r^ ipondent No.4 is retauied by the s peti.tioner subiaits that for the disposed of with a iliberty to the presentation before the concemed aufhority and tiie concemed a|uthority ruay be directed to dispose of the said representation wittj|ia the stipulated penod granted by fhis Gourt. XI-HC-78 9^T<ti<<t«<<,tnD'(i-ltQ»&wi'<iy<< ' 3^ Hlttc'SiaplTW 3fi^9Ttraqi{<3^igq%) an^iwftaiW ainaH$<T**iid> '-/ i'AJ ^Q' "i\ 'lfe^ -^-"° ?^iim^ifta 3ii^T _ •^— This luaited prayer, petitioner is aot opposed by Qi4 The prayer is allowed. Is so advised, tlie representatiQn along with a cQiiipetent .authonty wifhia a ^ if sueh a reprcsentatioa is dispbse of the said representa| withia a period of6weeksfror4 representation. With fhe aforesaid disposed qf. Consequeiitly, M.W.P.No) also staad disposed of. Gerti&ed copy as per rule^ nlade <t»l<l(ri41'111*lril''t"fc'dx(uit^i'( iSaif^iTan^H bv learaed counsel for fhe State coiinsel. [petitioner raay file a detailed cet-tified copy of this order before ftie ^eridd of one inonth from today aud 4led the competent auttiority shaU jtion as early as possible preferably the date ofBiiug/receipt ofthe said obsei|vations, tfds petitioa stauds finaUy |3800/ 2005 and I.A. No. 8409/2005 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ililII M\ ^KI Bl M\