SINGLEB^GH ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. tT63& OF 2011. -^ PETITIONER Dayal Hari Das, S/o. Shri Khagendra Kumar Das, aged about 52 years, posted as Sub Treasury Officer, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C. G.) VERSUS IIN^ RESPONDENTS ^.- ^^^ . '^.:<t^^ Y-- \r'^<^' '..•••''^^'•\v..>' ...•-^-i>-' ^s^"? A--'" ^* s^ ..VSNi 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Finance Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. The Collector, North Bastar Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 3. Deputy Collector North Bastar Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 4. M. L. Nishad, Son of Not known, aged about 50 years, Post Sub Treasury Officer, Block Bhanupratappur, North Bastar Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) r b WRIT PETIT10N UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA hi j'y'^"~\ tt '•SsSS^. i! I 'vsss^ 1 —~s H'GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PET!T!ON fS) N0. 4836 OF 2011 PETiTSCNER ;p<ipDMnFNT? \i— '!h>i i - \^S i '-i L^? ^-3 "S ; •i, Dayai Hari Da; Vsrsus Stats of Chhatt'saarh & Others Writ Pstitto" unaer Articis 228 ofthe Constitution o? Ind'a) Singie Bench : Hon'bte Shri Safeh K. Agnlhotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocat®for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao. Govemmsnt Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on ihis 1S day of August, 2011) 1. Bv this 'oetition, the oetitioner seeks to chaiienge the legaiw and vaiidliy of the ordsr dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the resDcndent No.3/ Deouw Colisctor. 2. Shri Vsrma, learned counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that eariier by order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner worklna as Sub Treasun/ Officer has been transferred from Antagarh io Bhanupratappur on adminlstrative grounds and by the same order, the resDondsnt No.4 has been oosted at Antagarh. S'nri Verma. furiher submits that In coi'npitance of the said order, the petitioner joined at Shsnupratappur on 19.07.2011 and thereafter the charge was asven to the Detitioner on 20.07.2011. However, al! of a sudden. by order dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has been directed to join at eariier place of posting i.e. Antagarh without any rhvme and rsason. Shri Verma next submits that once the order has been compiied wtth, the same cannot be changed. The impugned action of the respondent authorities is iilegai, arbitrar/ and contrary to the weii settled Drincipies of iaw. 3. On the other hand. tearned counsei appearino for the Statesubmits that the li-ipugned oreier dated 04.08.2011 is not a canceilation order, ashok gowri biit by ths said order. ths order dated 15.07.2011 has been 4. i have heard ieamed counsel appeanng for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 5. in the opinion of this Court once the transfer order Is executed, it is not necessary' to cancel fhe same after a period of about 15 days. Accordingiy, the impugned order dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. However, iiberty is resen/ed to the respondents/employer to pass an order afresh, if so advised, in accordance with law, ReeDina in vlew the pubiic interest and administrative exigencv. 6. In the result. the writ Detitlon is aliowed to the above extent. No order ^ •p asto costs. gd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHOW Judge