Sing!& Bench C.F f^L- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR W.PflMO. ^(><6S-3 /2QQ6 PETITIONER A. R. Bairagi, - 5/0- Shri Ram Sharan Bairagi, Aged about 53 years, ^/' y ... Deputy Superintendent of Police, ^y^ ^y ^y^ ^^y s<y RESPONDENTS Presently posted at Ambagarh Chowki, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^'^^ VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh,^ Through Secretary, Mome Department Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan,Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2. Inspector General Of Police , Police Head Quarter, Raipur District -Raipur (C.G.) 3) Superintendent of Police, / Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) yiQ \^A^VRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 .^" ^'y '^' /CV. CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA OFTHE ^Jv HI6H COURTjOF JUDICATURE CHHATTIS6ARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W.P.(S) No. 4853 of 2006 Petitioner A.R. Bairagi Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others Shri Anond Kumar Tiwari; counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate Seneral with Shri Satish Supta, by. 6ovt. Advocate, for the State/Fespondents. ORDER (7'»ofSeptember, 2006) 1. The petitioner is an empioyee of police department. The petitioner was working as Inspector, when he was promoted to the post on Deputy Superintendent of Police vide order dated 03.11.2004 (Annexure P/l). 2. As per the policyof the Sovernment, a person on tronsfer should be initially posted in the Naxalite affected area for a minimum period of 3 years or up to 54 years of age, whichever may be earlier. The petitioner was accordingly posted at Mohala, Ambogarh Chowki, Rajnondgaon. By impu9ned order dated 5.8.2006 (Annexure P/8), the Siii]!:-n.:"l-K-|;<: 1 '2-- petitioner has been transferred to 5C.ST. cetl, Crime branch, Dantewada, district Dantewada as beputy Superintendent of Police. ^ ^ir?I(- 3. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that vide order dated 1.7.2006 (Annexure P/6), the petitioner was transferred to police Subdiyision Pdndariya, District Kawardha but, he was not relieyed for joinin9 the new place of postin9. When the petitioner made a representation for relieving, the respondent did not retieve the petitioner, specifying the reason that since the Ambagarh Chowki is dense Naxalite area and there is no reliever in place of the petitioner, hence, it is not possible to relieye the petitioner to join at the new place and the impugned order was passed, thereafter. The petitioner ought not to have been posted at Dantewada, as initially he was posted in the Naxalite affected area for a period of 3 years, as per the policy of the 6overnment. On perusal of the policy, the subinissjon of the petitioner cannot be countenonced at this stage. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner gives up ol+ier points raised in the petition and seeks liberty of this Court to approach •rtie concerned authority for considering -3- ^ and deciding his representation dated 6.8.2006 (Annexure P/ll), within a stipulated period, to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection. 5. Consequently, the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above stated liberty. The concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the pending representation dated 6.8.2006, within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law, on its own merit, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •SeA^l •J' nu •x^^. ....St—.-.a '•'s::E'f1^®^^^^^^^^^% /"