^- '"- -HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant Petitioner Writ Appeal No. 431 of 2011 Ratan Ram Kashyap (R.R. Kashyap) s/o late Shri Sumaru Ram Kashyap, aged about 52 years, occupation Service, Forest Ranger, Forest Range Officer, Range Machkot, Forest Division, Bastar at Jagdalpur, distt. Bastar C.G. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Forest Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Conservator of Forest (Circle Bastar) at Jagdalpur, distt. Bastar C.G. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Bastar at Jagdalpur, distt. Bastar C.G. Writ appealunder Section 2 (1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Courts (Appeal to Division Bench) Act. 2006 Respondents Present: Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for the appellant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State / respondents. JUDGMENT ith (14tnSeptember,2011) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. fS^1 ar ""^.w^,./" W.A.No.431of 2011 ^ r / Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) The appellant has filed this intra Court appeal against the impugned order dated 23.08.2011 , passed in WP(S) No.4802/201 1. 3) The appellanV petitioner challenged the order dated 10.08.2011, whereby he was transferred from Forest Range Machkot, Forest Division Bastar, Jagdalpur, district Bastar to Forest Depot, Sukma, Forest Division Sukma, district Dantewada. 4) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find any infirmity in the order of the appellant's/petitioner's transfer and therefore, while declining to interfere in the matter dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 23.08.2011. 5) Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has not given due weight to the fact that the petitioner at the relevant time was an Elected Treasurer of the Employees Union and as such could not have been transferred. 6) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents, on the other hand, contended that the immunity from transfer which was available to the President, Secretary and Treasurer prior to the amended Circular (Ex.P/5) was restricted to President and Secretary alone and as such the petitioner could have and has been legally transferred from his present place of posting. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the order of the appellant's ^^vsw^^^ ^ ..^:^">e£^: ^r ^& 1 ii~—A-^- W.A. No. 431 of 2011 nimmi transfer impugned in the writ petition and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere in the matter of petitioner's transfer do not suffer from any infirmity. 8) As we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the intra Court appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge