CP"\^l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No, ^ 3 ^. Of 2006 PETITIONER /y /^' 3? v>-' ..'• ^..^y ^^ / \.v/ ^ ^tfy ,/w Harishanker Pandey S/o Late Shri, Gopinath Pandey , aged about 50 years , Assistant Grade III, Office of Executive Engineer, Public Works. Department, Raigarh , resident of Darogapara Civil Line, Near Collector Bungalow , Raigarh District Raigarh (CG). ^- VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l.The State of Chhattisgarh, ^ through the Secretary , Public Works Departnient, Mantralay , D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Executive Engineer,^ Public Works Department, Division Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (GG). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w •~\ r ^.. '?- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATHSGARH: BILASPUR SIn^e Bench: Hon'Me SIiri Satteh K. Agaihotrl, J. W. P. No. 4736 of 2006 Petitioner Respondeuts Versus Harishanker Pandey The State of Chhattis^rh & aaofhcr Shri Rakesh Aufhouy, Advocate for fhe petitkiner. Shri V.V.S. Moorfhy, Dy. Advocate General with Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respoudents. ORDBR (4th ofSeptember, 2006) By fhis petitiou, fhe petitioner has challenged legality of fhe traasfer order dated 6.7.2006 (Anaexure P-1) whereby he bas been transferred fiom. Raigarh Division to Ambikapur Circle. The inain grievance of fhe petitioner is fhat he is workiag as Assistant Grade-III and fhe seniorily of Assistaat Grade-III einployees are beiag inauitained circle wise and ia support, a gradation Ust has been enclosed as Aaiiexure P-2 which has uot been denied by leamed Deputy Advocate General for fhe State. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioncr subniits that if the order im.pugned is allowed to be executed, then the seniorily of thc petitioner shatl be affected, fherefore, the petitfoner. may be aUowed to niake a detailed representation to respondent No.l Lf and iu turu, the respondents be directed to decide the same ia accordaace wifh law. Haviag heard leamed counsel for fhe parties and having regard to fhe facts and circunistances of thc case, without expressiag any opinion. on fhe merit of fhe case, the petitioner is allowed to make a detailed representation raising aU his grievances to respondent No. 1 within 10 days fixiia today along with a copy of this petition & aiinexiires on such representation being filed the respondent No. 1 shatl decide the sanie wifhia a period of 30 days from fhe date of reccipt of the said representatton io. accordaace with law after considering all fhe points raised by the petitioner. In the ineantim.e, tffl the decision of fhe representation the effect aad operation of the iaipugned order dated 6.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) ia respect ofthe petitioner shaU reinain stayed. Wifh the direction aforesaid, the . petition staads disposed of. t^ Consequeufly, M.(W.)P. No. 3660/06, also stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. c^/ SatishK.Agnihotri Subhash