UtQM COURT OF CHHATDSGARH AT BtL^EUR W.P.(SyNo.4811of2006 '». 'P^tioner Versus Respohdents 1. 2. 3. Rai Singh Marko, S/o Shri R. N. Marko, ag®d about 44 yeare, Ranger For^t QepaMyent Kohndara, Btfaspur, Forest Rang®, Distrfct BIfaspur (C.G.), Rfo Gsyawhar, Ssrkanda, TahsH and DistrictKiaspur<G.G.) TheState of Chhatfjsgarh, Through Secratary, Department of Foresfc D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.S.}. ChW Cohservator of Fotast, Chhafflsgarh,Raipur<CG). Conser/ator of Forest, Bi!a^?ur Cirote, Bilaspur (C<5). Sakharam Koshale, Ranger, Katghora, Forest, Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETTOCT1 UMDERARTiCLES 22^227 WTHE GOStrB.ffKJNOFlWMft SB: Hon'ye Mr. Justtee Satish K.J^njhobi ShriGautamKhetrapa^^^eate^foTttiepffljtiorisr. MissSunJtaJsin.PanelLawyerfertherespondentsNo. 1 to3. ORDER (Passed on ffiis 19tt day of April, 2007) 1. The peStioner.by Ulis pe^ffion impugnsthe ordw dated 7*^ March, 2006 (Annexure P/1), whereundsr the petitioner has been transfsrred, on promofion, from the post of Farsst Rangsr, Bilaspur to the District Union, Laghu n<?paj Sangh Mar^dit, Bilaspur, on deputaSon. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for sendingthe petitioner on deputation noconsenl ofthe petitionerwas oteiined.in support of his submisaon leamed counse! for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 897 of 2007 ( P. R. Jhangde Vs. State pf ChhatS^iarh & ofters), which was arftowed victo orctoT <iated 17* Afm(,2W)7. (n at patitfon itwas held :fB ^ ^ii 'S :'sf that the transferof the senflces of the petitioner frorn the Forest Department to District Union. Rajya Laghu ^nGpaj Sar®h, Jasdaipur was in fact sendfng ttie peSfioner on deputaSon. vsnSiout obtaining hispriorconsent. 3. The respondents have not contrwerted the averments of the petjtionetto^effectthatthedeputatronorderwaspassedv^ obtaining consent of the pettioner. It 13 w^i settted principle of law ttiat if an emRto^ee fe sent on deputation.prior consent of the concemedemptoyeeshould be taken. 4. !n view of the foregoing averments made by the respondents, the petifion deserves to be allowed. 5. As a result, the iropt^ined orderdated 7.3.2006 C^nnsxure P/1). in respect of the pefitioner, is quashed. The petition is aik?wed. accordingly. No order s®to coste. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge :c: