^, t^^rsrvz^ ;¥ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER ^ 's^ w ?»y /^-"/v '•^.F. <-«. ^ . _-s>' <T , •^ ^-.^ ,<~ -<s ^E^PONDENTS W. P. S. N0. 3^S^ OF 2009 Vishvambhar Prasad Dansena son of late Manohar Prasad Dansena, aged about-59 years, Assistant Grade-1, District Trade and Industry Centre, Raigarh R/o Chhote Atarmuda, Ward No.28, Near Zila Panchayat, Raigarh (G.G.). VERSUS l.~ State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Trade and Industry Departraent , D.K.S. Bhavan; Raipur (C.G.) 2. ' Cdramissioner, Trade and Industry, Directorate, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.j. 4. 'Treneral Manager, District Trade and Industiy Centre, Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 _ OF JTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ,,»-,—. VERSUS Vishvambhar Prasad Dansena State of Chhattisgarh and others. w Shri M.K. Sinha counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG with Shri Shashank Thakur PL for the respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA O R DE R (20.07.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finaily. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 by which the petitioner who is working as A.G 1 has been transferred from Raigarh to Korba. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.6.2010 and therefore hi's pension related documents havs already been processed by the office where he is presently posted and if he Is compelled to go and join in his transferred place, an irreparable loss shaii be caused to him. He submits thatnobody has been posted in the place where the petitioner is presently posted. Counsei for the respondents/State submits that if the petitioner makes a representation to the authorities concerned, the same shail be considered and decided in accordance with law. To this proposition of the State-counsel, counse! for fhe petitioner showed his agreement. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned that in case the petitioner makes a representation within a period of 10 days from the date of receipf of copy of this order, the same shali be decided within a further period of three weeks from the date of its receipt. Tiil then the order impugned shall not operate so far as it re!afes to the petitioner. ^"—- g^jC ^ pritinkttDWake1' Judge