/?<^ .c HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Coram: Hon'bte Shri Dhlrendra IVIishra& Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ WritAppealNo.121 of2011 Petitioner Smt.PratSma Dwivedi, W/o ShriS.P. Dwivedi, aged about 41 years, Occupation-Asstt. Aecount Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon (CG) R/o Punam Colony, Opposite of Anand Mangaj Bhawan, Rajanadgoan (CG) Vs. Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Department, DKS. Bhawan, Rajpur, Disft. Rajpur (CG) The Collector (Panchayat) District Rajnandgaon(CG) The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ; Tlie Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 1 The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon District Rajandangaon (CG)| Present: Shri DeepakJain.counselfortheappeJlant. Shri Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Dy. A.G. for the State. 2. ORAL JUDGMENT (01.4.2011) Appellant's writ petitton against the order dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P-6), whereby the earlier transfer order dated 15.07.2Q10 (Annexure P-3) was cahcelled has been dismissed bythe impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was transferred after continuousiy serying in Janpad Panchayat; Dongargarh for a period of 23 years. !n compliance of the said transfer order, she was relieved by 3&Y^?" <-/. c 4. 5. the C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Dongargon on 23.07.2010 and joined at her transferred place on 24.07.2010. However, transfer order was cancelled vide order of Annexure P-6 dated 29.09.2010 and the order of cancellation has been passed wjthoutaffording her any opportunity of hearing. Learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order stating that the transfer order of Annexure P-3 was passed wjthout mutual consent of both fhe Panchayats, which is necessary as per provisions ofthe statutory Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recrujtment and General Conditions Services) Rules, 1999 (henceforth "the Rutes, 1999"). However, from bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it would be evident that Rule 27 pertains to appointment of any employee of Panchayat Service of other Panchayat whereas, in the present case, the appellant was transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Dongargaon to Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon by order of the C.E.O, Zila Panchayat» Rajnandgaon'as per transfer policy ofthe State Government for the year 2010-2011. Learned counsel for the appellant was heard on admission. Learned Single Judge, considering the stand of the Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon in its return, held that the appellant was transferred to Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon without prior consent of the said Panchayat in violation of Statutory Rule 27 ofthe Rules 1999 and as such WKiabintio. We fjnd no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 27 has no application to the facts of the present case as it is a case of transfer. From bare perusal of the provisions in the Rules, 1999, it is dear that it relates to appointment of a Panchayat employee employed in one Panchayat to some other Panchayat. In the instant case also, the appellant, who isanemployee of Janpad Panchayat, Dongargaon has been transferred and posted at Janpad Panchayat, .Rajnandgaon. 7. Thus, the appointment of the appellant at Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon byway of its transfer order by the District Panchayat, Rajnandgaon is contrary to the Rules, 1999. 8. On the basis of above discussion, we find no substance in this appeal. The same deserves to be and isaccordingly dismissed attheadmission stage. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge