«{w: “E “tub“ V IN THE 111% COURI OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR 1; WRIT PETITION No. j§26Lmm of S K Pathak S/o Sim V ‘N Pathak aged I_ 49 years, Occupation-Government ' Ssmce presently workmg Is Assistant _ i? Engineer/S D 0 m Water Resource: Department Rio 416 SundarNIgat, Raxpur (C G) PETITIONER wRrUNDE I 12/27 rm s U . FRIsUNcuo Asr L mron so »c on, caw -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS 1‘. State of Chhauisyih thwugh Secretary, Depamnent of Watet Resources, D K S Bhavm, Ralpur (C G) 2. Engineer-m-Chref Water W g (b » reek \9--’ . Resources D epnrtmeut Rarpnr (CG) @$?@ 3. Ioint Secrettry, Public Relations ' Q (p f Department, D.K;S.Bhlvau. ' '0. ,. Raipur (C.G.). i " Chief Engineer, Mahaundi—r Godavari Basin Project, Raipnr. S. Munnalal Agewal, Assimntv Engineer, Water Manngement Division No. l, Raipur (C.G.). , . \iQFglél/L‘w @200 mm<wa) wwmm WW $ WWW@1¥W?W $e1‘f‘wm ram 37W En'ii‘ia? 2 1. 1 1 . 2003 Petitioncr by Shri Raje State bV Shri Ranbir S Hcani. By this writ petition ul‘ of India tha petitioner has ci Which_flle petitioner has bee Divisional omcer, Water Res Raipur to the office of As Division No. 1 , Raipur. The petitioner’s petitic Assistant Engineer, earlier t office of Chief Engineer, Me ban has been imposed on - 21.8.2003 the petiu'oner was Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Officer, Water Resources S11 Respondent No.5 was prolm Being influential person he i the place of petitioner and tb oiiice of Assistant Enginee. Raipur. Therefore, this order ev Smivastava, Advocate. ingh, Govt. Advocate. lder Article 226/ 227 ogme’Constitution Jailenged the order dated 6. 10.2003 by n transferred from the office of the Sub ources Department, Sub-Division No, 1, sistant Engineer, Water Management, n is that he is working on the post of he petitioner was on attachment in the hanadi Project, Raipur. As a complete attachment, themfore Vide order dated transferred from the Office of the Chief Raipur to the Ofhce of Sub Divisional 3 Division No. 1, Raipur. Thereafter the )ted to the post of Assistant Engineer. vas transferred vide impugned order at e petitioner'has been transferred to the r Water Management, Division No.1, being malaflde be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Challenge petitioner has been transferred in an / to the petition is that the GRPRJ—FS/350— l 2/2000—50900, illegal manner and contrary to the policy of the Govt. and under the inlluence and recommenda’rjun af someone. Even, though the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer vide their letter dated 10.10.2003 recommended for cancellation of the tranefer of the petitioner to the Engineer—in- Chief but so far nothingghas been done in that regard. Therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to make a detailed representation and the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the same, for which learned Govt. Advocate has no objection. Having heard learne regard to the facts and Ciro allowed to make a detailed presentation within a period of 10 days from today to the Respon ent No.2 who in turn will decide the representation Within a peri d of 3O days fmm the date of receipt of the representation in an recommendations for canoe and Superintending Enginet petitioner by passing a reaso itions this petition is disposed of finally. certified copy of this order. . Sd/_ _ L C‘ BHADOC‘ counsel for the patties and having stances of the case the petitioner is With the above obsenr: Parties are entitled for bjective manner in the light of the llation‘ made by the Respondent No4 *r considering all the grievances of the ned order. Maw