G. '^, /<0/ _!N, THE HIGH COURT OF JUBICATURE GF C.G. AT BILASPUR C&3 *^"n- n WBIT PETITICN NO.'3803 /2006 PETITIONEB ^ ^* ^^•^^. •^^s^"" ^'yw ^6°-t A--"" ^•" Surendra Pratap Singh, son of Shri Ram Baj Sxngh, aged 54 years, Field Assistant Work Charge Jal Sansadhan ff1«L Bemetara, Sub-Division N0. 2 Betara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPON^NJS (1) S-tate of Chhattisgarh,Through Chief Secretary D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) f^^ ^-" (2) Principal Secretary Department of Water Reseurces D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ^(3) Engineer inChiefof Water Reso- urces Department Sehora Bhawan Raipur, (Oihattisgarh) (4) Chief Engineer Mahanandi Godawa- / ri Kachhar Shanti Nager Raipur, (Chhat-fcisgarh) ®ITPETITION UNDER ARTIQLE 226/227 0£._Tffi CQNSTI- TUTION OF INDIA. FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE WRIT/WalTS. ORDER/ORDERS. DJRECTiai/ DIRECTICTIS. XI-HC-78 *11*1^1 9THT<»» gsr^iraicTO, o^fl^'is, Riiiuy .tA9..rl^°.' * v */* »* *•*'-»«r«»«-»t_; »+^»* @) ^ 200 ^ 3ll^l lacn (liclt3<s«i]ST) 3n^?T9irR-fi<ti (raT,3n^Tsbt< (, eTgTWflfNsn^r 4.8.2006;- Shri J.S. Baraik, counsel foj Shri Sumesh Bajaj, respondents, on adyance copy. 1-feard both the counsel. By the instant petition, Charge, Field Officer in the Wot^ has challenged his transfer order^ the said transfer is 2006 for the reason that the service at Bemetara whereas, transfers of those employees ye.ws of service ot one place. Peruisal of the policy shows policy envisages that the employe[ service at one place should not be Learned counsel for the allegation against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner may be^ respondent No.3 ond he be learned counsel for respondents Having heard learned couns^l facts and circumstances of the ^ the petitioner-. Sov^rnment Advocate for the Stote/ =tii<if<i<fl-i Hi*idTit'te^ttR]«i< ^sri^iTsn^r t^e petitioner, who is working as Work (r Resources DeparFment at Bemetara, dated 30-6-2006 on the ground that against the po|licy of the Sovernment dated 26 May pe^itioner has only completed 2 years of |the policy enviaiges thot at least shjould be made who have completed 3 |that sub-clause (4) of Clause 2 of the ^swho have not completed 3 years of frransfer'red. p|etitioner submitted that there is no even then he has been transferred, allowed to make a representation to dir^cted to decide the same, to which no objection. for the parties, having regard to the and without expressing any opinion hiks cdise P.T.O. XI-HC-78 7SI rq|<||0t|, yifly'IS, fs|<11My *TI*TcfTSh^|ch W[ 200 3ll^l 4a«n(lcli^':"5,]iT) sn^r ?)T f^iN; cTO* (IcRTshHlt) 1 Barye ^ '^ ^nWflfeTaTi^r "c prc|yer on the merit of the case,the petitioner is just, fair and r-easc^iable. allowed to mcd<e a detailed repr^sentation petition to respondent No.3 within turn, respondent No,3 is direct^c petitioner within a period of 30| representation, after considering (jil in accordance with lcw. With the direction aforesai<|l, Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.2^( Parfies are entitled for cert(fied »hi<il<'i41-iiiKiaT ff te'^t' <F:S]«|< ^Tsrf^irsn^T made by learned counsel for the Therefore, the petitioner is along with a copy of this a period of 10 days from today and in ;d to decide representotion of the days from the date of receipt of ill the points raised by the petitioner, , the petition stands disposed of. '69/2006 also stands disposed of. copy of this order. Sd/- L.C-Bhadoo Judge P.T.O.