GL ^^^^S.^v ^M^-.p.ff IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION(S) N0. ^o06 OF 2010 PETITIONER: ^ljfe.Bssa jsa^ ^.""^ 7^S^-~"f^" VERSUS RESPONDENT(S):1 Gautiya Ram, Aged About- 59 Years, S/o- Sitaraber Ram, Occupation- Service- Accountant, Posted at Office of Block Education Officer, Shankar Garh, Distt- 8urguja(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Adira Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Deputy Secretary, Department of Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Collector (Tribal Developinent) Arabikapur, Disst. Surguja (C.G.) ^" 4. S.R. Dewangan, S/o- not Known to the pefitioner, Occupation- Service- Accountant, Posted in the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Soorajpur Distt- Surguja (C.G.) h- .i^fe£i<^i^^^S%iS^§^?; d^^^^%£S^^^^^si£&^^^^&:S^i^^ s'^iSS^^^/si^^S^^&SI^^^S^^sSS^^^^^^^Ss^^^Ssv^^S^^^^^ WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^- v ^ -HC—78 T^ '<ii<<i<?i<<, yaly'Ko, (qcii'My CT^^^-^-3'0^--- u sii^niRr (•'pfgq^E;) sn^iTifrfe W STi^I sKHW SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra M<ihaa Shrl^stava^J. 28.6.2010 ^I^d^-T 'V^ ^ f^St tf^l^R ^<fffOT31]^I Shri Viaay Pandey, counsejl for the petMoner. 1 Shri Vinod Tekaui, Panel l^iwyer for fhc Stete, on advaace copy. Heard, By fhis petition, the pe^itioner has assailed fbc validily of transfer order dated 30th June order dated 11.6.2010 (Armexur^ P-4) on tfae submission that against fhe transfer order dated 3(p.6.2009, petitioner had preferred representation inainly on the groi belongs to handicapped category and aUowed to continue at the p^ 2009 (Armexuie P-1) and i relieviag \md fhat hc is suffermg firoin Polio and as also that tte pctitioner is goin% to retire w.e.f. 318t March, 2011. thereafter, petitioncr was not rdieved resent place of posting. However, now, aa order of relieving has been is^ued wifhout fhere bcing any decision on petitioner's representation foriconsideration ofhis case. Takmg into considerati^ii fbat the petitioner preferred representation, whlch, tfll date,j has not been decMed, it would be appropriate to direct respondeut jNo.S/Coltector to consider petitioner's given eflTect until reUevmg order| representation and decide fhe s^ine withia 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy offhis order. In view of fhe fact that th^ impugned order of trausfer was not issued on 11.6.2010, as also takmg ' l^n^- •^il ?a'-HC—78 's^ •^rraRTqr, yflly'is, f®i'viiy^< ^iTrasiT( sn^v w h-u* 'sv an^r aiii'* ?'tfltti[R ^rf?^ STl^T ±^ pefitionerjbelongs uito consMeration fhat suffermg firom PoBo, no cocrcn|e petitioner, till the dccision ofhis With fhe aforcsaid disposed off. to handicapped categoiy and steps shaU be taken againat the ^epresentation. r^ations, the petition staads fiaaUy obserl/ations Certt&ed copy as per rules. Praween ^>Pirf'cT^hT "'RTR^y ^' 'fe^1 '?f^R^R ^;affiTO3iit5i Sd-/ Mamndra Mohan Shrivastava Judge