IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR /2011 PETITIONER ^..'^fe^ ••••''"^<a-^""'.'...--"' ^^<^"- RESPONDENTS W.P.(S)NO. S5^^ ^ : Parmanand Netam, S/o H.R. Netam, aged about 32 years, ^•f^^A^~ working as forest guard, posted at Konta, Under the range officer, Konta, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh- Through :- The Secretary, 2. ^ Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Divisional Forest Officer, Sukma, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 3.^ HIGH COURT O^CHHATTTSCTARH AT BIIA8PUR WRIT PETITION .(8) No. 5366 of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Parmaiiaad Netam. VER8IJ8 ofChhattisgarii & OfeerB. WRIT PETniON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 1BE CQNSIITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me SIirl Satisii K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri N.KXSihattCTJee, Advoeate for the petitioiier. Sliri Shasliaitk. Tliakur, Panel Lawyer for Qie Siaie/rcspoiidesils. OR I) K R (Passed on !2th"da^ofSeptember, 2011) 1. Leamed coimsel appearing &r the pctiuoncr sisbmits ttiat vide order dated 1.5,07.2010 (Aimexire P/l), tfae petitioQer, woAmg aa Fores<- G-uard at P-anga Konta, Forest Divisioxi Dantewada. lias been transferred to Bastan on the option ofthe Divisional Forest Offieer^ on .his own. reqiiest. However^ the petitioner faas not yet teen relieved t.o jom the new place of po.st.mg. Shri Cliatterjee forther sybmita that. once the cxder oftraiisfer has been passed. it ia for the goverament to easiire tliat. it m eomplied witli mimediately» He relies on a decision ofthe Supreme Coyrt. m Sf^ee^am Ch(mdra Gkosh v. State ofA^am & others, m. siipport of his conte^tion that ifthe order is not complied witfa, a can be iss'wd for themof 2. Leamed coimsel a.ppea.ri.ng for the State/respoiident-s submits that ifthe transfer order dated 15.07.2010 (Amiexiire P/l) is stil! m exi^t.ence and ha.s not been complied-witb. a.ppropriate steps wotild be ta.kea to comDlv with t.ise order, 3, Ifthe. aforesa.id Iramfer order is still m the governmeiit is imder an obligation to comply with the at, oiice, It is accordmgly directed that the tra-asfer order shall b€? complied with forthwith^ within a pwiod oftwo weeks. 4. Accordmgiy^ tliis petitioo is di-sposed of g^. SatishK.Agnihotn v Judge 1 (1996)108cc 567