SINGIE BEIGSH‘ away @ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'rrISGARH AT BILAsPUR (c.G.) w. P. s No. L of 2011 3??1 f PETITIONER : Goverdhan Prasad Rathiya, aged about 5O years, S/o Shri Suklal Rathiya, > Incharge, Food Officer, Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies &- Consumer Protection, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Under Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Commissioner, directorate, Food Civil' Supplies and Consumer Protection, Raipur (C.G.) ‘ / 4. Collector, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.) K 5. Ramkishore Shukla, Assistant Food Officer, Korba (C.G.) 6. M.S. Paikra, Food Officer, Surguja, District-Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 134 OF 2011 Petitioner Goverdhan Prasad Rathiya Versus . State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present z‘ Shri R. Pradhan, Advocate forthe petitioner. * ‘Shri Ajit singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Pankaj‘ Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.5. @1- Respondents ORDER ORAL (Passed on 14 day of March. 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner $ was holding the post as ln-charge Food Ofticer, Korba, when the impugned transfer order was passed on 15.7.2010. This Court. by order dated 12.1.2011, having considered all the facts of the case, directed to continue the petitioner at his original place of postingie Korba. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order as afore-stated of this Court means that the petitioner should have been continued, as ln-charge Food Officer, though his substantive post is Assistant Food Oflicer and with regard to the place, there is no dispute that the petitioner is to continue at Kora itself. Since the petitioner was not holding the post of Food Officer. it cannot be said that the afore— stated order directed to post the petitioner on the post of ln~charge Food Officer at Korba. The place was important, not‘ the post. as his substantive post is Assistant Food Officer and there is no dispute that the petitioner is posted at Korba on his substantive post. According to learned counsei for the petitioner, the petitioner does not want to contest the transfer issue, at this stage. However, the payment of salary for which, the State counsel was directed to seek instructions may be directed to release the same forthwith. 4. Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that if the salary has not been released, the same shall be released at an earliest, in accordance with law. - In view of foregoing, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok