FAGE NO... M^Si 1•••»•*»» c^tfol 004 IN THE HQNOURABLE HIGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / WRIT PETITION N0. 2^60 / 2003 ^ PETITIONER ^- ,Q-' ^s^ ^^? ^ VERSUS Amrit Kun-iar Mendhe, son of Shri Govind Mendhe, aged about 43 years, Patwgri, P.H. No.ll, Pendravan, Tah. Narharpur, Distt. Kanker (Chhattisgarh). .-•"".^^' .^^9" /• ^. 'RESPONDENTS .,<a.» State of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretary, Departnaent of Revenue, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Phool Singh, Jurry, son of Not Known", Patwari, P.H. No. 13 Bandapal, Tah. Antagarh, Distt. Kankrir (Chhattisgarh) PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TjjE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 49 :Rl*1<?Sia?TT?? 3'BET;:qT3npra', sF^twis, fsjrii'i'ty'; p • p- (<s o • l--i-1' Q ' 3n^sTq»iR-i aaTrsiI^CTiCTTtp K 311^?T q3®(!^fg6^5) 27.07.2005 Shri R.N. Jha, learned co|unsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma; Panej None for respondent no.3 Heard. This petition has been fj 16.07.2003 (Annexure P-1) by favour of the petitioner on 27 Patwari in P.H.No.11, Tahsil Ni dated 27.6.2003 (Annexure ! Narharpur to Distt. Rajnandg^ submits that this order was carl P-1 just within 20 days without Learned counsel for tt petitioner v/as not relieved in 27.6.2003, therefore, he could; canceliation. He also submits Bastar and Kanker for the last :*i^id4)-i mwyr'^'fet^i^i^R ^?3lf^IT3II^?T Lawyer for the State/ respondeht no.1. led against the impugned order dated •hich the earlier transfer order issued in .6.2003 has been cancelted. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub^nits that the petitioner is working as ^rharpur, Distt. Kanker. By eartier order p'-T) he was transferred from Tahsil ion on his own expense. He further celled by the impugned order Annexure issigning any reason. ie petifioner submits that since the pursuance of the earlier order dated not join before passing of this order of that the petitioner is working in District ;0 years and the aforesaid transfer order ^n^ XI-HC-78 Bliji Mli ffiN:^ v.jwq T^|«lrt<4,t»-rfll1<ld,Rrtl-«y< 050 *ii*i«iapTi^ 3IRn!RlR-li'<b ?TaiT3II^?[ipWP ~-li< 3IT^9T CR'P (<jcllj<s|<E;) ^200 B'RTTW^fersn^n - -L- affected on his own request b^ce in the State of Maharashtra whCch On the other hand, that transfer is an exigency transferable post cannot chal such cancellation which in b^cause the parents ofthe petitioner reside is nea?er to Rajnandgaon. learhed counsel for the respondents submits cjf service and a person appointed on a l^nge either the order of transfer or any exigency of an empioyer. There is no doubt in proposition narrated by learneitl the Court is as to why an orper request of a person after stayi|ig was canceited by the State responsibility of the employer the employee, which may affe|;t may not suffer due to un^ concerned for his oersona! cancellation of the order of to which an employer is atwa^s pass any order just now on 16.7.2003, but this court thinKs <t>i<i(c»<?li*ii*iwT*t"ls'<9 •((unsn ^>ail^Hgn^?T 'acf, is consequence of administrative the mind of this court regarding the counsel for the State, but the anxiety of of transfer which was made on the for a long period at a particular place s(/ithout assigning any reason. it is the (o see that a situation may not arise with s|;t his work or work of the employer wh ich |;omfortable position of the employee >. These may not be the grounds for but these are certainly the grounds concerned. This court is not going to impugned order of canceilation dated it proper to.issue a direction to the reasons. trahsfer trte -C'L iiffi id'CT|T^ii<4trt^,yTTl<{i<KS, Rrti'dy'; V .1 ,t qpRH^*ff^ 3^ST<Plf^:ri<R c'aiiW^STtRHra) ,:ll i 1 i ?~&p sn^ST'ra^^gsi^) petitioner to fiie a detailed authority of the State Governntent which have been argued before] it is expected that the authority | said representation by consider) in accordance with law. The of 15 days from today alongwiti|i authority shall take decision on one month from the date offilinl |representation before the concerned raising all his personal grievances, ]this Court by way of representation and lof the State Goyernment wilS decide the |ng all the points raised by the petitioner rejiresentation may be fiied within a period the certified copy of this order and the irt- cbl-l|fri4'l-f^l<4dl'it'feA'?fefTgR ^aif^rsn^ST |the said representation wilti^period of ofthe said representation. With the aforesaid obsejvations I deem it proper to dispose cf this writ petition at this stage. It is made clear that if th$ petitioner would not be satisfied by the decision taken by the State on be at liberty to approach this Accordingly, this petition the representation fiied by him,he shali Cdurt once again. Istands finally disposed of. Sd/- SuniIKumar Sinha Judge