HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W,P.(S1 No. 897 of 2007 Petitioner P. R. Jhangde, S/Q Amol Das Jhangde, fi^ed about 55 years, PresenBy posted an woriang as Sub Divisional Officw ^oresO/Ass'stant Conservator of Forest, Janjgir, District - Janjgir- Champa (CG). Vsrsus Respondents 1. Stete of ChhatBsgarh. Through the Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Buiidir®. Man&ateya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur (CG). 3. Conseivator of Forest, Bilaspur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE COSTlTUnONOFtNDfA SB: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri B. D. Guru, Adyocate forthe petifioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Ctepufy Govt. Acivocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passad on this 17"' day of April, 2007) 1, The peBfioner, iay this petifion impugns Uw order dated 4 February, 2(X)7 (Annexurs P/1). whereunder ttie petitionsr has been transferred from the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Jan@ir Champa to District Union, Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Sangh Jagdatpur, on deputation. 2. On reading of fte impugned order, it appears that ttiis is not a case of transfer but it is a case of deputation to Rajya Laghu Vanopaj Sangh, as is evident from the remark 'on deputaBon'. mentioned for the officer, whose name is placed at sen'a! No. 13 (Shri T. B. Singh) and at sen'a! No. 15 ( Shri Padmakar Rawat) in ttie impugned order dated 4th Fetoruary, 2007. F' '?-;-a^'S&^^7'--::;-''':-'-':'-'T-T;:''WK:T;'-'BS^B'tr'S^'E?Sl'?»W'<BW !ni»n! 3. Leamsd counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for sending the petttioner on deputation no consent of the petitioner was obtained. 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the r^pondents have fited their retum which is supported by the afRdavit of Shri Rajesh Nanhoriya, Divisional Forest Officsr, Champa. In para 8 of the retum, while replying the contente of Para 5.5 of the petition, it was clearlystated, as under:- ".............it is submitted that the petiBoner has been transfsrred on deputation, therefore, Shere vws no occasion for ttss answering respondsnte to consider the option ofths petitionsr." 5. The respondente have not confroverted the averments of the petitioner to the effect ttiat the deputafion order was passed without obtaining consent of the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that if an employee is senton deputetion, prior consent of the concemed emptoyee shoutd be taken. 6. In view of the fbregoing averments made by the respondente, the peBtion deserves to be allowred. 7. As a result, the impugned order dated 4.2.2007 (Annexure P/1), in respect of the petitioner, is quashed. The petition is allcwed, accordingly, with cost quanfified to be a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand), payable to the High Court Legal Ssrvices Committee, Bilaspur, within a period of two weete. The same is recoverable from the officers responsible for passing the impugned order and fiiing affidavit. Satish K. Agnihotn