( % ‘wGL/ @ lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATHSGARm W.P. (S) No. 5"? 1T9 (2011 PETITIONER : K Prabhu Ram Benvansh S/o Lt. R.K.Benvansh, A/a 46 Years, R/o Chhattisgarh, Department of Tribal Welfare, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya; Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Collector, Tribal Welfare Department, District Koriya (C.G.) WRIT PETITION ' UNDER ARTICLE OF INDIA 226/227 THE CONSTITUTIog i Primary School, ChirhaTola, a» $ WVA i.w BharatPur, District Koria (C.G.) 4‘ é 'V Y’A (2[6/’\' $wm$x®4 ........ eN' V VERSUS “6% 6 ¢3\%RESP0NDEN;I‘S: / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5420 OF 2011 j PETmON WI .ot Pmbhu Ram Benvansh Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Artic‘e 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi'i Arun Sao. Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 15‘“ day of September, 201 1) t. Chattenge irlthis petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner, working as Headmaster at Primary School Chhirhatoia‘ Block Bharatpur, has been transferred to Primary School Tumbibadi, Block Baikunthpur, on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner is also working as an Anganbadi worker at Janpad Panchayat. Bharatput, and at present is posted at Moharpara, viliage Kunwari, Bharatpur. The transfer poiicy of the State prescribes that as far as possible, the husband and wife should be posted at the same place, which has not been done in the instant case. The petitioner ought to have been posted at the nearest place of posting of the wife. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that if the petitioner aiongwith his wife makes a joint representation raising their grievance, the same shaii be considered and decided sympatheticaily, in accordance with iaw and on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. 4. in view of the above, according to iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforestated . observation. SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge m. Sd/- aShOK