HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG RH AT BILA5PUR IB. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & 3 HON’BLE SHRI R N CHANDRAKAR JJ Writ Appeal No 22 ckf 2M1 : Vakll Sharma Ageél about 58 years S/o Late Shri- Appellant Shlv Poolan Sharma Occupation — Platoon Commander ACO pany, Bllaspur Dist: Bllaspur (CG) I x Versus espondents 1 State of Chhattlsglarhk Thraugh The Secretaryi Home Mmlstry, DKo Bhawan Ralpur Distt Ralpur (CG) 2. The Director General of Police, Police V Headquarter, RalpUr, Distt. Raipur (CG) 3. Commandant ‘ 6m Battalion: Chl'lattisgarh Arm Force, Urdana Camp, Raigarh, DiStt. Raigarh {CG} 4. “The Inspector General of Police, lVCAFQPollce Headquarter, Raipur. Present: ‘ Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal couneel for the appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt Advocate for the State ORAL JUDGMENT (24E, January, 201 1) Per nhimnrlm Mishra J The appellant’s writ petition against his transfer order dated 25‘“ December 2010 whereby he has been transferred from Bilaspur ‘A’ Company to Ambikapur ‘D’ Company has been dismissed by the lmpugned order 2.‘ 9 Grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that helmet with two accidents in the year 1999 and 2007 in whichrhe sustained grievous injunes He was posted at 6‘“ Battalion Raigarh Vide order dated a 15‘" June 2007 However he was transferred from Raigarh to Bilaspur Vide‘ order dated 12 11 2007 His representation against the aforesaid transfer order was not decrded and his salary was also not disbursed He mined his duties at Brlaspur on 20‘“ March 201 0 and thereafter by the impugned order he has been again transferred to Ambrkapur 3.? ‘ Shri Agrawalr learned counsel appearing for the appeltant, submits that the appellant's representation agatnst his transfer order dated 1111.200? has not been'oonsidered titl date. ‘He was oratly advised by respondent No3 to take rest till any decision is taken on his application. D R ' Q Howevr his epesentio has ee d md ev ftr moe an 1 e rrtan not bn ed en ae r th e nor ny ar h bee lease du e ieae peo an ay, wn d a spr on 0‘“ arc, 201 0, e s bee a trsferre to Ambipur ve order d ber, 201 0. The leard ni Judge, hout onsidring the rort of the Medical Board (Annexure , whereb hs be advis that th aelan shd gv lgt dty e é ai o ; xalrte a e a as ead mit a liction? aed 66208 for tio o his arlier asie ed i e aerntive or ay retirt b ret No 2 n gd hat he is e hard ties Hwevr n CiSio ha ben akn ppn nnure N3) y i a en ed e} pplt eul be ien ih u h ha been agn transferred t a na-prone are Th ppellant h alry subted n appa dt 20 cancellan f e trnr rer or n th lta f voluntr emen efore sponden o the roun t unabl to do du oe o den s e te on his alicatio of Aex A19 srvato that after the peitione stained inurie, e was ted at igar n Bip‘ bt h did t ply t e rer at 1.1 07 for io of 2 V2 ear ad thu ha ded e od assed e hier auris. However, it haseen ir hat if rrtation is mde by te eitier the State shll coidr nd ded sam n cjn t f 6. ‘ ’After going through the impugned order and considering that the appellant did not comply with the transfer ordef, whereby he was posted at i Bilasépur from Raigarh, for a period of 2 1/2 years, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the transfer ma‘ters m View of the settled prinCiples of iaw in this regard as mentioned in para 5 of the impugned order We also take note of the directions to the State Government in the impugned order whereby the State has been directed to ' consider the representation if any, made by the petitioner and deorde the same in accordance With law on humanitarian grounds. We find that there is no good ground made out by teamed counsel for the appellant for, \ interference with the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. obein tr su js h pos ' Raéh ad lasur u e no com wih th od ded 2 1 .20 aperd ys n s, he s isobye th rer p by th gh thoite b dected t a epesen a h pton, a nse a cie the e i acordace wih law on humanitarian grounds as aorestated. , Sd/— i Dhirendra Mishra Judge yar a saly as n red ring th v rid d finll he he jomed his uties t Bilau 2 Mh h ha n gam‘ and ka id date 25”“ Decem ne Sige wit ce ep 4, ‘ Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. 5. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with