NX' ^s^ '?<ss' -...- '^--' ^^ -^P^^V....-' c^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE.AT BILASPUR (C^ WRITPETITION ( S \NQ. M (-t 02> OF 2011 PETITTONER :Bhagwat Prasad Sahu S/o. Late Shri Chhedu Ram Sahu, aged about 42 Years, Occupation - Service. Posted as Panchayat Secretary at Gram Panchayat Kisda ( Dhandani ) R/o. Village - Mohtara, Thasil - Bilaigarh . bisttt- Raipur(iC.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 2. 3. y' State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Panchayat & Rural Development Department &.K. S. Building Raipur ( C.G.} The Collector Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Panchayat Raipur , Distt.- Raipur (C.G.} Chief Executive officer Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, bistt.- RaipurC C.G.) WRIT PETI7TQN UNDER ARTECLES 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INblAFORJSSUEANCEOF APPROPRIATE WRIT. 1. PARTECULAftS OF THE PETTTEONER Ass c' .•^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR WRI'[ PETITION (S) No. 4403 of.2011 « VETIT.IQNER : Bha.gwat Prasad Sahu. VERSUS State ofCMsattisaarh & Otfaers. \VRIT PETII'ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITm'IQNOF INDIA Shri Sunil Sahu. Advocats fcr the Shr Anm Sao, Govemment Advoeate 1 aad 2. the >th (Passed on 08m day ofAugust, 2011) 1. By this petition. the petitioner seeks to challenge the ieealih' and validity ofthe order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) by which, the petitioner, working as Panchayat Secretar}', Kisda (Dhandani) Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarii, has been transfen'ed to Janpad Pancfaayat, Bhatopara, without the consent ofths petitioner aad Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara. 2. At the very outset, leamed counse! appearmg for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in ttus petition is asto whether an employee of one Janpad Paneliayat can bs transferred to another Janpad Panehayat, without its consent. Tlie said issue eame up f'or consideration before this Conrt m Om Prakash v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ot'he.rs wherein it was held that an employee of one Panchayat caimot be.transferred to other Panchayat without agreemenVeonsent of the Panchayat and employee. Tlms, the instant petition may also be disposed ofin the same terms. 3. Leamed eounsel appearins for the State does not eoatrovert the above sabmission and subinits that this petition may also be disposed of in the saaie terms. 4. In view of the submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in tenas of the order passed in Om Prakash (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect oftiie petitioner, is quashed. ——^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge WRIT PETiTION (S) N0.3236 OF 2010, dedded on 05.08.2011