HON BLEs B IN THE; HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No Stag / 2010 . D. K. Parashar, S/o Lt Shri Va§udev ' Paras‘har Aged about 48 years Post—‘ Ophthalmic Assustant/ Rehabmtatlon ‘ ASOIstant R/o Near Sub Health Center Gandhi Chowk Bodhghat Colony Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G VERSUS EETTI: IONER RESPONDENTS: 1-; [State of Chhattisgarh, v ' Through the Secretary, S Health Services, Ministry, D.K.. Building, Raipur, C.G. 2 The Director, Directorate of Health Serwces, - Old Nurses Hostel Near D K S Budding Raipur, Distri t Raipur, C G ‘ r / 3 The Jomt Director/ Hospital Superintendent Maharani Hospital - Jagdalpur, District Bastar C G ‘ (a i 4 The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C G K“ 5 The Chief Medical & Health Officer, District North Bastar Kanker, C G / ‘ 6 The CiVil Surgeon Maharani Hospital ’ ‘Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C G WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLET226‘OF THE CONSTITUTIO V “ OF- INDIA The petitioner harried above beg toisubmitas under:— 1 ' VEART‘LQULAR'S OF THE‘IHETITIONER": i ‘ ' q , :As~‘mentiOned‘ in the cause title. _ %‘L 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTs:- .As mentioned in the causc title ’ i 3. PARTICULARs OF THE ORDER AGAINST WNICH THIS ’PTI E ETION‘IS BEING MAD ' ,.,#.__._i. __._—i,_.,__/i f @ / , . ’ ‘ ' \ N ' l _ i, 1, : é i ‘ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPU WRIT PETITION (SI_NO.51708 OF 2010 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) I Slngle Bench Hon ble Shn Satlsh K Agnlhotn J Present - ShnAIok Dewangan Advocate forthe petitioner Shri Aiit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State ORDER ORAL) (Passed on this 13th day of January, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27/08/2010 7(Annexure P/’1) whereby the transfer of the petitioner dated 15/07/2010 (Annexure P/3) which was complied With by the L petitioner was cancelled Without asSigning any reason 2. The case of the petitioner as proiected by the petitioner is that on V the baSis of representation dated 15/06/2010 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was transferred by the order dated 15/07/2010 (Annexure P/3) on his own expenses as the transfer was made one g L his- request. Accordingly the‘ petitioner was relieyed on 23/07/2010 (Annexure P/4) from the Office of Chief Medical Officer Kanker to Maharani Hospital Jagdalpur Subsequently thereupon the petitioner iomed the new place of posting After pining the new place of posting the impugned order dated 27/08/2010 (Annexure P/1) was passed canceling earlier order of transfer Without aSSigning any reason Since first transfer order was passed on hisrequest, the petitioner incurred expenses in shifting his set-up luggage, articles etc. from Kanker to Jagdalpur and the order was complied with. ' \ N .., H R Petitioner D.K. Parashar I \ Versus Respondents ‘ State Shri Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioher submits that subsequent order canceling the earlier order, oAnce‘ it has been complied with, is illegal, void and deserves to be quashed on the ground stated herein above. - ‘ On the other hand, Shri Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State raised the ground, thoughtit was not stated in the impugned order, that there was no post available and post which was available, was the post of promotion. Be that at it may, first/y the order of cancellation is' bad as no ground has been stated In the order secondly, the order which has already been complied With the reasons stated In the return cannot be taken as reason for cancellation of the executed transfer order. lt is well settled principles of law that an employer can post an employee at any place in public interest and administrative eXIgency The order which is already executed Is not required to I e cancelled as In the case on hand the order was passed orrthe request of the employee and no allowance‘for transfer was paid to him which he was entitled to. l do not find any reason to sustain the impugned order which Was not necessary to be passed after execution of the earlier transfer order dated \r‘ 07/2010 Thus the impugned order is quashed In View of the wbove the writ petition is allowed to the above‘ xtent. g ,, V a ' , #_ ‘ Sd/- e ris‘itx. Agnthom' ‘vsJudge - ‘ l b e , “se ’