WRIT PEUTION (5) NO. PETITIONER = RESPONDENTS : 33?}? , OF 2002 /Humkhmm Chandrakar‘, 5/0 La’re / ”1%“ ck.» $ veasus (1) 35n§¥a Wgh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Shri B.L.Chandrakar, aged about 50 years, Occupafion- Service as Assistant Grade—III Office of The Execufive Engineer, E/M HEM Division, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, District— Biiaspur, (6.6.) i State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D. K. S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur, District— Raipur, (C.G.) Engineer—in—Chief , Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan,, Civil Line, Raipur, District- Raipur, (CG) Mww/ x (3) Executive Engineer, E/M, HEM, Division, WRD, Bilaspur, Districi- Biiaspur, (C.6.) M! PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CON51TITUTIQg OF INDIA HIGH C$URT OF CHEATNSGARH AT EILASE’Ug $3 : HOWELE $HRE &$€5§TICE FRITHEKER DEW‘AKER wagggaya. 3377;2009 FETITIONER Harakhl‘am Chandrakar Versus RESPQN9ENTS State of C.G-. 8r, OtherS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDEA Appexaace: Shri Sum'l Sahu, commei for tbs petitioner. 8hr; Sumesh Bajaj, G.A¢ with Shri Arvind Dubey, P.L. for thé State. am (mam {133124399} Challenge in tha pr€5€nt petiticn is to th€ ordm‘ dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P,’ l) by which the petitioner who is working a3 Assistant Grade Hi has been trmwferred from the office of Executive Engineer E/M HEM Division. WRD, Bilaseur to the oiiice of Executive Engmeer, WRD, Jagdalpur. Comention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the tramsfer order has been issued against the Government poiicy as there was no proper proposal for his transfer by the competent authority. Fr On the other harid, counsel for the State submits that r the transfer order has been issued strictly irl accordance with law arid as per the government policy. I Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may 'be .‘ permitted. to withtiraw‘the present petition with liberty to maka reprasentation to the respondent No.1. However, the said authorHy be directed to ‘iecide the representatkm considering all the grievances of the petitioner and further the said representation be decided expeditiously. On the other hamd counsel for the State has no objection if the petitioner makes a representation and he contends that the same would be decided expeditiously. In the event of petitioner’s making the represerxtation within ten days from the date of receipt of this order: the same wouid be decidec'i within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation. With the above observation, the petition stands T disposed of. fr /‘_s ”v! I Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker