(/%\W® PETITIONER g/ RESPONDENTS 7 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG'ARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (S) NoMfvH§% / 2011 Uttam Kumar Gupta S/ o S.S.P. Gupta, aged about 39 years, Presently working as Assistant Conservator of Forest, Gandai, Khairagarh Forest' Division, District— Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS l) State of Chhattisgarh — Through the Secretary, Forest Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipu‘r (C.G.) r 2) The Additional Secretary, State of ,, 3) The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Union, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, DKS Bhawan, Rai'pur (C.G.)~ RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / W garb of transfer which is void ab initio. 3. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that one Shri R.K.Tiwari who has been transferred from Kawardha Forest Division to Gandai, Khairagarh Forest Division, tie. where the petitioner is posted, has not been HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 47 17 of 2011 PETITIONER : Uttam Kumar Gupta. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri P.R.Patankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 18 day ofAugust, 201 1) (WM; . Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P/l), whereby, the petitioner, working as Assistant Divisional Forest Officer, Gandai, Kharaigarh Forest Division, has been transferred as Deputy Managing Director, District Union of Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce, Forest Division, Raipur. 2. Shri Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not a transfer but it is a case of deputation and the employee cannot be sent on deputation without consent of the employee. Shri Patankar next submits that no consent was taken nom the petitioner and the petitioner has been sent on deputation under the arrayed as party-respondent. Thus, This petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. . In the case on hand, it is not a transfer simplicitor but it is a transfer on deputation as the petitioner has been transferred from one forest division to District Union of Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce, Raipur on the post of Deputy Managing Director. So far as transfer of Shri R.K.Tiwari is concerned, he is being transferred from one forest division to another forest division. Thus, both are different issues and it is not necessary for the petitioner to array Shri R.K.Tiwari, as party- respondent in the petition. . The respondents have also not controverted the averments of the petitioner to the effect that under the impugned order,the petitioner is being sent on deputation, without obtaining consent of the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that if an employee is sent on deputation, prior consent of the employee should be taken. (See : S.S.Kunwar v. State ofC.G.) 1 . In view of the above, the impugned order dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. . Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. //.//""’/’—. ,A,, Amit l (201 1) II coLR Weekly 58 /