(^ . IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) No.MCT-6 OF 2011 PETITIONER •^ ^:^: . ,>;^ ?":::.<^/ ^€"^ ^<^. v/A^'r RESPONDENTS : Dayaram Paikra, Son of Shri Janeshwar Prasad, aged about 39 years, Occupation Secretary, Village Panchayat Potka, Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.), VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary - Panchayat 85 Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralya, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Collector, Surguja, Anibikapur, (C.G.), 3) Deputy Director, Panchayat, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), 4) Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Ainbikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS. ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS etc. ^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG.'^RH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4876 of2011 PETITIONER : Dayai-am Paikra. RESPONDENTS VERSU8 State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ashok wprr pETmoN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Smt. Hamida Siddique, Advocate for the petitioner. Slm ^^miiSao, Goveniiiiesit Advocate for the State. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 25m day ofAugust, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) by which, the petitioner, working as Panchayat Secretary, Potka, Lakhanpur, has been fransferred to Janpad Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, on administrative gi'ounds. 2. At the very outset, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved m this petition is asto whether an employee of one Janpad Panchayat can be transfeiTed to another Janpad Panchayat, without its consent. The said issue came up for consideration before this Court in Om Prakash v. State of ChhaUisgarh & Others, wherein it was held that an employee of one Panchayat caimot be transferred to other Panchayat without agreement/consent of the Panchayat and employee. Tims, the instant pctition may also be disposed ofm the same terms. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the State does not controvert the above submission and submits that this petition may also be disposed of in the same temis. 4. In view ofthe submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed ofin terms ofthe order passed in Om Prakash (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) m respect ofthe petitioner, is quashed. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge WRIT PETITtON (S) N0.3236 OF 2010, decided on 05.08.2011