[^ ^^ .....^^^1' '^y-^T' Aawi--"" IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rc.6.) WR.IT PETCTCON ( S )NO. ^f)^ OF 2011 PETITIONER : Sahdev S<Au S/o. Shri Janak Rsra Sahu aged about 36 Years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Panchayat Secretary at Gram panchayat Khapridih, R/o. Village - fiirwani, Post SaJonikala, Thasil - Bilaigarli, Disttt.- RaipurC C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^-' 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Panchayat &. Rurat Development Department D.K. S. Building Raipur (C.G.) «-^" 2. The Collector Raipur bistt.- Raipur (C.6.) 3. The Chi&f Ex&cutiova office Zila Panchayat Raipur. Distt- Raipur (C. G.) 4. Chief Executive officer Janpad Panchayat Bilaiflarh. Distt.- Raipur( C.G.) Wf&T PETCTEON UNDER ARTCCLES 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF IN&IA FORISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT -3^fe^\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARII ATBILASPUR WRFT PE'nTION ('S) No. 4076 of2011 PE'ITTIQNER RESPQM3ENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. U'RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTn'UTJQN_OF INDIA ,J. Tesent: Aant Sunii Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Arun Sao, G-ovemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. .2. (Passed os 08'" day ofAngast, 2011) 1. By this petinon, the petitioner seeks to challeilge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 14.07.2011 (Amiexure P/I) by wluch, fhe petitioner, working as Panchayat Secretary, Kliapridih, Janpad Paachayat Bilaigarh, iias been transferred to Datrengi, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, without the consent ofthe pstitioner and Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara. 2. At the very outset, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in ttus petition is asto whether an empioyee of one Janpad Panchayat ean be transferred to another Janpad Panehayat, without its consent. The said issue came up for consideration before this Court in Om prakash v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others , wherein it was held that an employee of one Panchayat cannot be transferred to other Pan^iayat without agreement/consent of the Panehayat and employee. Thus, the instant petition may also be disposed ot'in tfae same terms. 3. Leamed couasel appearing fbr the State does not controvert the above submission and submits tliat tliis petition may aiso be disposed of in the same tsrms. 4. In view of the submission iriade by leamed counsel sppearins for the parties. this petition is disposed of in terro.s of the order passed in Om prakash (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 14.07.2011 C'Wiexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner, is quashed. Sd/- SatishK.Ag^lo Judge WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3236 OF 2010, decided on 05.03.2011