^ €^: '^"x...--"' li.<-"^ .<••;'\ J>-** Kl2?.?3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUft WRIT PETCTCON ( Sl Jl°2^LOF^Qll PETCTCONER : Shambhu Lal Patel S/o. Shri Tihar Singh Patel aged about 35 Years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Panchayat Secretary at Gram panchayat Salihaghdt, R/o. Village - Solihaghat. Thasit - Bilaigarh , Disttt.- Raipur( C.6. ^"/'- RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Panchayat & Rurat Development Department D.K. 5. Building Raipur ( C.6.) <" _. ^ .. - - .. .- '^ . 2. The Collector Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.6-) .^ f" 3. The Chief Executiove office Zila Panchayat Raipur , Oistt.- Raipur (C. G.) 4. Chief Executive officer Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, bistt.- Raipur( C.G.} WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTCCLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - QF INDIA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPKEATE WRIT. ^& ^ HIC-H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AXBtt^PUR WRIT PET1TION (S) No. 4078 of 2011. PETlTlONER : ShambhuLalPatel. VERSUS State of'CMiattisaarh & Others. 'vsn PETITION UMDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITOTION SB: Hon'Ne Sliri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shii Sunii Sahu, Advocate &r tlie petitioner. Shr Arun S< 1 and 2. fos ii^ k.Si.&i.w/Aw ttiNO. (Passed on >a n 08m day ofAugust, 201 1) Amit 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) by which, the petitioner, working as Panchayat Secretary, Salihaghata, Jaitpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, has been transferred to Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, without the consent ofthe petitioner and Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara. 2. At the very outset, leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioner submits tliat the issue involved ia this petition is asto -whether aa employee of one Janpad Panchayat c.'m be transferred to another Janpad PancSiayat, without its conseat. 'I'he said issue came up for consideration before {fais Court in Om Prakash v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , wherein it was held that an emplovee of one Panchayat cannot be transferred to other Panehayat without agreement/consent of the Panchayat and employee. Thus, the instant petition may also 'be disposed of in the same tenns. 3. Leamed counsei appeariag for fhe State does not controvert the above subirdssion and submits that this petition may also be disposed of in the same terms. 4. In visw of the subiaission made by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, tiiis petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Om Prakash (supra) i.e. the hnpcgned order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure t—- — -— -—— is quasnea. Satish K. Agnihoti-i Judge ^ WR1T PETITION (S) N0.3238 OF 2810, decided O!- 05.08.2011