HEGH COURT GF CHHAT'HSGARH AT 3¥LA$PEER ENI$¥0M EENCH Ciaram : HON’EIE SERI RAJEEV GUF‘WQ. CJ. & HGN’BLE SHRE TJ’. 3HARMA, J. WWT APPEAL No. 264 0f 2W% T.$. ?§‘§”H£§RE, AGED- 48 YEARS, S/O LATE BHUKHAU RAM PATHARE, PRESENTLY WGRKENG AT — A$S§8TANT, AT- DISTRICT OFF€CEg CG. STATE CfViL SUPPLEES CORPORATION LiMiTED; RAIPUR. RIO VILLAGE — SEMARWA, msm — RNPUR (ca) VERSUS A?PELLAN"U PETETEONER: RESPONDENTS 1. CEHAWSGARH $TATE cnm. SUPPLzEs ceRPeRAnom LimaTEa, THROUGH ~ {Ts MANAGING DIRECTOR, HQ. - BAL ASHRAM CAMPUS! KACHERY CHOWK, RNPUR (ca) 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (ADM), C.G. STATE CIVIL SUPPLTES . CORPORATQTN LIMTTED, BAL ASHRAM CAMPUS, KACHERY CHGWK, RAIPUR. WRTT APPEAL UNDER $ECTI0N - 2 g1) OF THE CHgATTT$$ARH 'FTTGH CGURT IAP‘PEAL TG SWT$TON BENCH) ACT; 2%0S Present: Shri‘ RIK Keshawvani, {earned counsei f0: the appeiSant/petTtioner. JUEGM§NT {8m December, 29.98} The feiiowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rageev Gaptag 6.3,: Learned counsel far the agpeilant is heard on admission m 2. Appellant T.S. Pathare, has fiied this Wi'it appeai against the xorcier dated 24.1 1 .2008, passed in W.P.(S) No.$500/2008. 3. Appeiiant/Petiiioner fiied the writ petition for the foilewing - reiiefs : “10.1 This Hon’bie Court may kindiy be pieased to can for the eniére records pertaimng to the impugned order, dt. 11/11/2008 Annexure—P/S and impugned transfer order, dt. 26/08I2008 Annexure-PI1 . 10.2 That, this Hon’bie Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or suitable direction (s) to the authorities queshing the impugned order, dated 11/1 1/2008 Annexure — P/5 and further to quash the impugned transfer order, dt, 26/8/2008 Annexure-P/t so far as it reiates to the petitioner. 10.3 May kindly be pleased to aiiow the consequential benefits of services etc. 10.4 Any other relief as the Hon‘bie Court may be deemed fit and proper. 10.5 Cost of petition may kindiy be aiiowed.” 4. The petitioner, thus, in substance was chaiienging the order dated 11.11.2008 whereby his representation against his transfer was rejected by the respondents; and the order dated 26.08.2008 whereby he was transferred from Raipur to Dantewada. 5. Appeiiant T.S. Paihare who was working as Assistant in the District office of Chhattisgarh State Civil Suppiies Corpsration Limited, Raipur was transferred to District office of Chhattisgarh \ Sta€e Civii Suppiies Corporation Limited, Dantewada vide order dated 26.08.2008. The earlier writ petition fiied by the appeiiant/petitioner was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner against his transfer expeditiously, preferabiy within a period of six - weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. The petitioner’s representation was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 11.1 1 .2008. The petitioner, then fiiect writ petition i.e. W.P.(s) No.6500/2008, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.1 1 .2008. 7. $hri R.K. Kesharwani, iearned oounset for the appellant vehementiy argued that the respondents have erred in rejecting the appellant’s representation against his transfer as the appeilant/petitioner was transferred on the basis of a complaint against him and no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant/petitioner before passing the transfer order. 8. Learned Singie Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and considering that the facts of the present case were distinguishable from the facts in the case ot-State of UMP. and another v. Jagdeo Singh and another reported in AIR 1984 SC 115, passed the impugned order dismissing the appellant’s writ petition foiiowing the dicta of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others v. Janardhan Debnath and another reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245 and State ot iJ.P. and another v. siya Ram and another reported in r2994} r soc 495. i i i 9 Appeimnt- T.S. Pathare iomed at Raipur sometime in the month of March - April, 2006. Thus: he was transfened from Raipur to Dantewada after having remained at Raipur for a period of about 2 1/2 years. it). On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsei for the appeiient, we do not find any infirmity either in the impngned order dated 2411.2008‘ whereby the appeilant’s writ petition was dismissed or in the order dated 11.1 i .2008; whereby the appeiiant’s representation was reieoted by the respondents or /‘ in the order dated 26.68.2Q08, whereby the appeiiant was transferred from Raipur to Dantewade. 11. The writ appeal, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereoy dismissed summariiy. ; emf Sd/- T.P Shanna; Judge Chief Justice Judge «ag—umW A »v e tn, wrw:-mvt t3 r 1 J/A. ‘