Bss^^'^^^^^^s^'sr '^'^^'^'s^'^s^s^^^% ^5Ll »in< ,."\ INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBII.ASPUR. ^!C:H1-iS T-ri!SiSARl-t: : : , WRIT PETItlON <TS1 N0. 3>3K3 /2009 PETITIONER ^^' •^^'" ^y -^" : , RESPQNDENT : AnjanKPrasad Tripathi, aged aboyt 49 years, S/o. Late Shri Lal Mani Tripathi, presently posted as Mali (Gardner) O/o. The Assistant^^^^^^^^^^^^^^D NortiGulture, NaFgyanpur, Distriet . Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS ^ 2. 3. State pf Chhattisgarh, Through; TheSeci-etary, ©epar^mentofAgricultUFe, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ra ipur, Chhattisga rh The Deputy.Secretary, Goveri'iment ofCMihattisgarh, Departmenl: of Agcicultur'e,? | DKS Bhawan, Manttrajaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Direetor, DirectQrateof HGlrticulfure^ | ;:Reena:.i:,4Rfe'tttie:Hlt,^rflst!/'l|lGor,i DMamta ri. Road, Pachpedj Nakaj, RaiRur; Chtattisgairh : ^ 4. The Collectpr, Naraya n pur, Ch hattisga rh 5. <^T~he Assistant Djrector, Department of Horticulture, ; Narayanpur, | District Narciyahpur, Chhattisgarh WRIT UN@ERAR^©l-EM^®mECCai\l^^ OF :ilNm^©RiEiSEMiKIM:.^iMlffiffl^^ INT'HE NM^R@iCSKii3»©iaiii a lWF^ AN¥ OTNJR V^ftIltiliglffilBB a»liBIMiE)Si^ DiREcftiN C»^t3iK8MIMiiMtiilfi:'aiB'li:w • ^ Sf^I^'fT'W 7T8TT •3TT^T ^^1^' ^ST "ll'lld^, ^Tli'M'Ko, fs|<fiyll,< ^_........U:.E.......faC>..'s>Gis an^T'q^? (' ?«nwafOT3n^i SB : HON'BLESHRI JUSTICE PRtTINKBRDIWAKER 30.07.2009 Shri Shashank Thakur, coujisel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, P.L.j Challenge in the present tj the same would be adversely effe 'wifer'ft'i MWyft''? 'fs^t <F-ii^i< ^? aifgii 3n^?i for the State. itition is to the order dated 30& June 2009 passed by Armexure F|/1 by which the petitioner who is •working as CIass IV einployee in th^ office of Govemment Hortioulture Nursery Keriapal, Block Narayan^ur, Narayanpur to the office of Assistant Director, Main Garden, R|aipur. The aiain contention of co4nsel for the petitioner is that his seniority is being maiatained divisi^in wise and by the order impugned •ted. He further submits that the order has been issued contrary to t^ie transfer policy. On the other hand, counsel| petitioner make a representation saine would be decided in accordarjce with law. Counsel for the petitioner for the State submits that let the to the respondent No.l and the ^grees to make a representEdAon. However he submits that till hijs representation is decided, the petitioner may be given some prote<|Aive order. Accordingly, the petition is ^isposed of with a direction to the petitioner to inake a representatioiji within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy c|f this order, the same would be decided by the authorifies concerried within a period of three weeks froin the date of its receipt. Till the)a the impugned order shall not be given effect to and the petitioner would be allowed to perform his duties in his present place of postiqg. 1 Pritinker Diwaker Judge •^'