IN THE HIGH COURT OP JUD'IC^TURE- AT BILAS,PUP^<-CHHATT3S,GARH) WRIT PETITION NO.^0^^ OF 2003 ^ (3/ PETITIONER&: ^' ^•: . .»••' .<^^ <-^s^' t^'-" ^' ^' Kameshwar Tiwari^ son of Manmohan Tiwari,aged about 59 years, working ^s Porest Guard,posted at Dandgaon Beat, U<3aipur Forest Range^ South sarguja Forest Divislon^ ^nbikapur^District-Barguja, (C^G,) Rajgriha pandey^son of late Shri Laldhari Pandey, aged about 59 years^ working as Forest Guard,posted at Sharma Beat^Udalpur Forest Range^ S.outh Sarguja Porest Division^ -^-nbikapur, Dlstrict-Sarguja, (CoG^) V E R £U S RESipONDENTS; ; 1. S.tate of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Forest and Culture.D.K.S.Building, Mantralay^Raipur^DlstrIct-Raipur^ (C.G.) s 2. The Conser^ator of Forest, Sarguja, ^mbikapuro Dlstrict-Sarguja,(C.G.) ^ ^SIT PETZTIOW UND.BR ARTICLESJ 22r6/2yf OF THE .^ £ ^^ ^ ^bNS;TrruTioN OF IKD^, -.%^^^s^s®^.&^%^^^ ^a^,»^ s^^Js^^ XI-HC-22 ^3?n^^ r,^PF3^T ^H '{-C1.. ^s( ^j^id^, ^1d1w<^, {^<nt^y anc^r 'q=ra? i^.f.pa. '7-e8sla3> 'WRW^Rt^**<"<*"^"*<*""*<<*^*a*^*^W^F^ 20° 3ii^ ^^HW ^ri^T ^a.y.^uuy <^i^I<?1<8<1 W^ "^ fs<<3 <fa^$K '^35t^T331^ Petitioners by Shii B. D, ^ruru, Advocate. Respondents/State by St<ri Raabir Sio.gh, Govt, Advocate, By fhis petition under Art^cle 226/ 227 ofthe Constitution of India fhe petitiouers seek to chaUengi ^ the order dated 3.7.2003 passed by the Respondent No.l by which tii€| petitioners have been traiisfeiTed from District- Sarguja to Jashpur, T|bie petitioners are Forest Guard workiag m fhe Forest Department of l^ie State of Chhattisgarh, theu' date of bu-th is 15.2.1945 aad 19.1.1945 rcspectively. The age of superaanuation for the post of Forest Guard is 60 years thereby the petitioners are goiag to be reti^d witihdn a period of aaotiier 15 to 16 months, I The petitionersjl case is tt|at they are at fhe fag end of their service career and as per fhe Govt, pol^y the Govt. employees are not supposed tp be teaasferred durmg their l^st two years of service career, The other ground taken ia the petition is| fhat class-III aad IV eBiployees are not traiisferred froia one district to laiiother distdct but ia. fhis case bofh the petitioners have been transfen^jd out of the distdct, On 25th July 2003 o|ie week's time was allowed to the respondents/State for filmg i^ply. Agaia on 11th August 2003 one week's time was asked for an.^ fhe same was allowed, but even after lapse of four weeks tiie ^eturo. has not been filed by fhe rcspondeiits/State. Leamed Gk^ft, Advocate veiy fraakly submitted that nobody concemmg fhe Departi4ent has contacted him to file tlie retum, In view of fhe above sit^iation aad lookuig to fhe fact tih.at fhe petitioners are at fhe fag end o^ their service career aad fhey have been XI-HC-22 ^a? >;^PiR;P(T, ^^tlwt^, fa<r(Wi< 'RFRr(T^W(ch 3ff^9T 2.o^y^ •M 200 fa-b<^ . 'sn^r'^r R^Tii?ti ^^^ j; 5b^<ft ^I^a ^\:- sn^^iwc-^F u-ansferrea irom one distnct to ft Court it is just and proper to impugned traiisfer order so Kameshwar Tiwari aiid Rajgriha In fhe result, fhe petition i^ dt 3.7,2003 is quashed so far as Tiwari and Rajgriha Pandey is co4< Certified copy as per Rules,j ^iiofher district, m the opmion of this aU|3w this writ petition and to quash fhe as it rclates to fhe petitioners I^aadey is concemed, aUowed, The impugned transfer order |t rclates to the petitiouers Kameshwar ^emed, Gbl^id^ WR^S ^ 'fe1^ <fa^t< ^^pdH^I^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [T^^fe^