^.^^•'•fc" ^-:-Sf^y^^- WRIT PETITION (S) No. '•" 1 " "-/2011 ^ Mahavir Panth, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Ram Avatar, R/o Village Bundeli, Thana Jhagrakhand Tahsil Manendragarh Distt. Koriya RESPQNDENTS 1 2 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary,. Panchayat and Rural Departme.nt,· D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur The Collector, Koriya ^ Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Koriya, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRJT_PETITION (S) N0.4462 OF 2011 PETITIONER MahavirPanth RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticte 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passedonthis9 dayofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 18-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) by which the petitioner working as Panchayat Secretary has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Banji, Janpad Panchayat Manendragarh to Gram Panchayat Jamgahna, Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition is asto whether an employee of one Janpad Panchayat can be transferred to another Janpad Panchayat, without its consent. The said issue came up for consideration before this Court in Om Prakash v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, wherein it was held that an employee of one Panchayat cannot be transferred to other Panchayat without agreemenVconsent of the Panchayat and employee. Thus, the instant petition may also be disposed of in the same terms. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not controvert the above submission and submits that this petition may also be disposed of in the same terms. 5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Om Prakash (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 18-7-2011 (Annexure P/1) in respect ofthe petitioner, is quashed. Gowri