“in?" Wim Wt ‘MW(W) mmm ’ PETITIONER: mm fg€tm $si1‘aqm Shantaram Patti, Sio Late $hri KB. Patii,‘ Aged about 49 yeara, Post — R.H.E.O. (Ciass iii Empioyee), Rio‘ ‘ Pragati Nagar, Rishaii, 330/28, Street No.3-H, Bhiiai, District Burg. (CG) r -Versus- ‘ RESPONDENTS: 1 ‘ / Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra: J. 30-1-2009:- Shri Alok DeWangans counsel f Shri YashwantSingh Thakur, respondents. Heard. This petition is directed agains 2005 whereby the petitioner, wh Development Officer at Durg, was 'the order of Annexure—PH dated 27-1 2. 3 was posted as Rural Horticulture transferred to Dantewada and further against the order dated 13-1 -2009 whereby the petitioner has been relieved on '! 3-1 —2009. State of Chhattisgarh, Through thef Secretary, Ministry of Agricuiture, ~ Horticuiture Department, D.K.S.‘ Building, Ministry, Raipur.(CG) The Direotor, Department of ‘ Hosticulture, Reena Apartment, First, Fioor, Pachpadi Naka, Raipur (CG) The Deputy Director, Department of- Horticutture, Coiteotorate Campus, ' 7 Durg, District Durg (CG) ~ :rrthe petitioner. Deputy Advocate General for the State] WWWm—Fs/95—11/2008—1,oo,ooo. \ ' % m - m ... ; , ‘mm (W) am amt am?! anW m mwm , “oz” W1 ' #7M aim 31m wW Learned counsel for the petiti nearing WP. No.297/2006 was disp sed of by this Court vide order dated :gO-J -2006 with liberty to the petitioner o flie representation against his transfer arder of Annexure-PI’L in the said der, it was also mentioned that the aetitioner may be allowed to conti Ue till his representation is decided. towTever, the petitioner was relieved without deciding his representation of nexure-PI3 dated 26-1 -2006. He fu her submitted that the order of relieving bad; as the same has been passed ner submitted that his eariier petition n thout considering his representation in ntravention of the order passed byt is Co'urt. He further submitted that the s ted 13-1 —2009 till they decide repres ntation of the petitioner on merits. Learned counsel for the State s bmitted that in case, the petitioner fries sh representation before responde No.1 against his transfer and relieving der of Annexure-Pl‘l, the same shall thority within a period of 3 weeks fr in View of the submissions ma i r presentation against his transfer and relieving order of Annexure-Pl’i before r spondent' No.1 within a period of 1 days from today, who in turn shall cide the same within a further perio of 3 weeks from the date’of receipt of of the petitioner isdecided, the i o pondents may be directed not to g e effect'to the order of Annexure—P/i a considered and decided by the said the’date of receipt of representation. by learned counsel for the parties, the berty to the petitioner to file fresh e n r u o d tant petition is disposed of with e r presentation. Till the representati etitioner shall be ailo&d to continue a Durg. , Sd/- ‘x‘i Dhiréndra Mishra. Judge Barve Wdaiawmuaaiatrta~FS/95—u /2008«1,oo,oao. \ A r e ' 'S n