T sw^ £ .-^2 -Tf '^9. x y IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WmT PETITION (S) N0. ^SVG OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. w ^>-^.y ^y ^v-y O.P. Mishra, S/o Shri V.P. Mishra, aged about 51 years, Assistant Grade III, Office of Tahsildar, Takhatpur, (Sub-Tahsil - Sakri), District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretar^/ Rajasva Evam Aapada Prabandhan Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Collector, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Collector, (Chhattisgarh) Janjgir-Champa ^.^v <v" ^ ^4. Shri Kedar Singh Chhatfriya, Assistant Grade - III, Office of Collector, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 6&' HIGHCQUR:rWCHHAmSGARHAT,BILASPUR WRITPETmON (8) No. 5210 of2010 PETITIQNER RE8PQNDENTS O.P.MislTra. • VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WR1T PETI'IION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . • SB: Hoii^ble Slm Satish K. Agiuhotil, J. Present: Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhadari, Pane! Lawyer forthe State/resposident No. 1. to 3. ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 14s day of Jaauary, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing fbr tlie petitioner submits that the petitioiier, working as Assistant Grade III m fhe office of the Tahsildar, Takhatpun District Bilaspur, has been transferred to tlie office ofthe Collector, Janjgir-Champa vide the impugned order dated 15.07.20.10, on admimstrative ,grounds. 2. Shri Shaiina submits that fhe appomling authority offhe petitioner is the Collector and fhe gradation list is maintamed district-vvise. Admittedly, ifthe petitioner is transfen-ed to other disti-ict, as per tbe mstmction applied to the petitioner, issued by the Deputy Collector for Collector, Bilaspur (Aimexure P9), he would be placed at the down below in the gradafion list of the Assistant Grade III, vvorking in otiher district. 3. Shri Sharma further submits that the transfer of tlie petitioner would substantially affect the career prospects ofthe petitioner and as such, this is pumtive order aiid lurther, the impugiied transfer is ^^y^^ g ^.^•^^ \ ^ ^ /y ^^:^^" ^y' %.£ -'^?^^ ^^^-.^ Amit 4. 6. £9 contrary to the well setlled principles that ifthe transfer afiects the career prospects ofan employee which is punitive, the same cannot be passed in a routine manner. Sfari Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing fbr the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that there is no dispute that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Collector and further, the Stete Govemmenf can transfer fhe petitioner from one place to anotiier place. Howeven his servrice career or promotion prospects are not to be affected by the transfer.In this case, though it has been clarified bv the Collector m the communication dated 28.09.2010 (Amiexiire P/9) to the petitioner that he would be placed in ffoe ^adation list at the dovvn below, which has not been approved by fhis Court in a catena of decisioiis. The State authorities may be permitted to consider his case in the light of the well settled propositions of law as laid down by this Court in Aalekh Kumar Devta v. State ofC.G. & Others1 In view of the above and for tiie reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned transfer order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State authorities to consider the case of the petitioner, afresh m the light of fhe decision rendered by this Court mAalekhKiimcirDevta . The petition is aliowed. No order asto costs. 8d/- .. .„: SatisbK.Ag'""0*" Judge 2005(2)CGLJ160.