pgiwk BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (S) No. g$$3> / 2009 / PETITIONER Sylvester Ekka, S/o Shri Joseph Ekka, aged about 49 years, presently posted as S.D.O., Disnet Sub~DiVision No. 11, Raipur, R/o Nai Basti, Ward No. 26, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS /’ RESPONDENTS : 1) ' State of Chhattisgarh — through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2) Under Secretary? Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) _/ 3) E11gineer—i11~C11ief, Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) /, 4) C. R. Sahu, Asstt. Engineer, Office of Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Water Resources Department, Raipur (C.G.) IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W’ QWX’ HEGH COURT 6F CHHIXTTE$GH AT B5LA$PUR (Eon Min $ust§ce Pfétinker wwake?) ‘ég‘Wit Patéimn ($) No. 3353 sf 2W§ PETWHQNEE ‘ Syivester Ekka VERSUS RE$PON$ENTS State of Chhatfisgarh anti others. Shri Adi! Minhaj counseHw the peti’iEoner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur and Shri Shashank Thakur, PL for the respondents/8mm. l WRITM PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON$TETUT§ON OF !NDIA o R n E R (13.o7.2oa9; tinatty. With the consent ef the counset for the parties, the matter is heard Chattenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.6.2009 passed by respondent No.2 by which the petitioner who is working as Sub Divisions? Officer, DISNET, $ub Division No. 11, Raipur, has been transferred to the office of Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project Water Resources Department, Raipur, as Assistant Engineer. Counset for the petitioner submits that present is a case Where the petttioner has been subjected to transfer tn iess than a year without there being any compiatnt against him. He submtts that the order impugned has been passed just to accommodate respondent No.4. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe community and therefore as per the circuiar of the State Government in respect of such employees transfer shoutd not be effected in a mechanical manner unless there is some compiaint against the incumbent. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to make a representation to the authorities concerned. A direction to the authorities concerned tor eariy‘disposal of the representation has atso been prayed for, to which counset for'the respondents/State has no objection. Accordingiyfthe petitionis dismissed as Withdrawn with iiberty as aforesaid. it is directed that it the petitioner makes a representation ‘ . ~2“ @§ z: wEfhin a period af €en days from the date of receEp’c of copy of this order, the same wourd be decided by the authorities concerned within a further period of three weeks from the date of Its receipt strlotty m accordance With aw Trtt then the order impugned shalt be kept m abeyarzce 7‘ ’ v Sd/-; Pritinker Diwaker r Judge §