IN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATUR3 AT BILASPUR,jCHHAT?ISGARH W&ED PETITION N0.9l&_ OF 2001 P3TITIONER s ^ Raj endra Kuraar son of Sundar Lal^aged 31 years resident of Avenue B^ Qr<,No.lO-B Sector^ 6 f B hilai ^ District-Durg (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDBNTS ^^ ^•y. y^^~ y<^ ^'^^ ^\^y- ^' ^ ,^ Perro Scrap Nigam Liinited (A Govt^ of India Undertaking) Post Bosc No<37^ Equipment Chowk^ Central Avenue Bhilai-490 001, Dist.Durg through Assisfcant General Manager, Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited^ 2< State Industrial Court Bench^ Raipur, Raipur (C.G) s^^. . .. . ..... ........ .-... .. . . ................................ .. £iT^I2!L.m®2RARTICLE _226_ OF THE CONS'En'UTION _OF ^NDIA FOR ISSUANCS OF WR_IT,_IN TH.E .laTmB OF CERTIO.^RI MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND FOR PTHB& SUITABLE WRIT OR WRZTS, DIREC" ZI^M.»aS-J}£RECSO^S«.^ORD£R--OS.^OI^^^« XI-HC-22 '^^r ^s^Kn^, ^Til^^Ko, ?®icr{i<H^< 3Ti^T 'qiW ^ w^^il^w^ ^....W,.P.....^.O/.2©0^ ^ ^^8T' ^n^T^T 'f^ri^T 3Tli^T 5b^i<^ <ifia ^ - ^^ '^n^R^f^TT + 18•9,2001 ? Shri Ashish Shrtvast Mr,P»S«Koshi for fehe .The Writ petitioner order isaued on 27 <»4^2001 t: go on transfer from Bhllai for-joinlng^ The petitioner Court by filing the presenfc: Mr.Koshi in faot he x^as giv duty^.Be that as it may^ so: this Court<» Xn viex-r of cert of the^rrit petitioner he c| @@ the order of stay x^ras va| Tribunal at Raipur on 15»5<»| petitioner approached this order of status8-q-uo, That ii tends that he, is still contl merits of the case,Shri Shri of transfer v^as issued malaj petxtioner 'was not even allj arrangement fco proceed to B| writ petitioner.that he is ferable post^ May be Bhilail • »« <^l^J<rt<4ll 'RT^f ^ 'fe^ <r^^i< i7^3:rf^FT W^I ^iva for the petitioner<» resp©ndents» |ls serving at Bhilaie By |ie petitloner was directed to ^o Botoro^ No time was given thereafter approached this wrlt petition^ Acoording to ^n a week?s time fco report on |ne-protection was allowed by ?( ^ln orders of sfcay^in__favour 3ntinued at Bhilai<,' However^ csated by the State Industrial 2001< Thereafter^the writ ;ourte This Court passed the s how the writ petitioner con- inuing at Bhilai^ As regards ivastava submits that the ordsr fide in as much as the writ 3wed sufficient time to make Dkaro» It is not the case of the Dtherwise holding a non trans" is a better place preferred [•^^fe^ ^T^T'^T 1^N>'3?1^T ^HNT^ft^ ^T^?T'q^? (^rf^^T) ^^99 .:RI^T i^iTW^fin by the x^rit petitioner ^ut fchat may not be a ground for him to continue to the writ petitioner has cbl^F<n^1"l 'RTR^ff ^ fe^ Tf^R^R ^? 3?f^TR 311^1 tay at Bhilai^ Ct seems that petitloner has been at $hilai for some years^ Mr<, Shrivastava prays for t|.me to unable^the petitioner to ±^fe-=tes^5Stf come bef<t>re this Court» It appears that -nd '.difference can' be.' ma^e .by .personal appearance of t.L^ wrlt petitioner who is ^epresented by a competent lawyer before this Court^ It i^ sutanitted by I^r ^Shrivastavja that "'^.. mlnor school-going children^Mr, Koshi sufcmits that in f^ictthe order of transfer ,was issued in the month of April a^id therefore it was a good time for the writ petitioner to |na}ce necessary arrangemenfes^ The writ petitioner accordi^ag to Mr.Koshi pught to have nffidea representation at that that order of transfer jtime^ MroShrivastaya submits that jas well as the order of release were absolutely no time comnunicated on the sanje date. Mr.Koshi oh the other hand states that the order ajf transfer was issued oa 27.4<rr"01 and the order of relea^e was issued on 30o4^2001 on xteij date the two orders werte furnished to the writ petit^Rer According to Mr ^ShrivasJtava this ^act on the part o£ the competent aufehority amquats to malafide^ in as much as he to make any representatione I thialc that difficulty is alr4ady over» MC .Shrivasta^a sutaaits that it would be falr 4hat ths writ petitioaer is still permitted by this courlp to make repiresentation before the competent authority^ GRPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50.000. ^ • • 4- ^——^--^ ^^^^ mw XI-HC-22 'STT^T'^T ^rw^Tr^T ^RW^rf^TT J l+^ + ^5E[ ^1^1^^ ^Tll^^Ko, fa<rfl^^< 'q^TO WR^IT'^HRT^' "W^ 200 ^3-^- 1^^* 3T?^r •^m'wTrf^r After examining of the present cas@ I am purpoae will be served to make re^resentatidbn a months froin the date o£ fer^ However^ it would s' is allowed to .the writ place of posting at Boka; transfer can not be tioner ^ In the result thi a direction that the pet reporfc on duty @t Bokaro I shall make it c with respect to the seni be maintained and the wr to TA and DA< as ttie '^PTf^R^f 1RTR^ff'? fe^ <P?1^R ^^Tf^R^TT^T facts and circumstances of the view that no useful ^y allowing the writ petitioner :ter a lapse o£ about 4 and 1/2 •ssusiance of the order of trans' ifcill be fair that some tima p|atition@r fco proceed to the 'o^ In my view the order of validly by the writ pefci- resifeted ^ petition is disposed of x^ith .tioner shall be allowed to by l-10-2001. .ear that the service conditions J3rity^payaBascale etCa shall A petitioner shall be entitled under the Rules.o permissifc>le In viex^r of the apDove order .fche contempt petitlon No<32/2001 is also dispo^ed of, Sd/- Chief Justice [-q^^r^ ^>-