SlngIeBench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.J W. P. (SINo.^\r^5)of2011 PETITIQNER i. Dinesh Kumar Puri S/o Shri Prahlad Puri, aged about 29 ..."•"^U^ Prahlad Puri, :fy\^- '^Sy' .' years, worklng as Panchayat & ../••••""^^•^" ....•••""'" Social Education Organizer, t\^^ IU^"V Office of Deputy Director, ^:^^' ^^^\ '^•""^' Office of Deputy Director, Panchayat 85 Social Welfare, Bijapur (C.G.) RBSPONDENTS VERSUS :!.- t State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.^ The Director, Panchayat & Social Service, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Bijapur (C.G.) ^' 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bijapur (C.G.) WmT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^0F THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON rS) No. 3179 of2011 pm'moNER : RESPONDENTS Dinesh Kumar Puri. VER8U8 State ofChhattisgarii &Ottio-s. \ |»NN»t. Axmt WHIT WIWON UNMR ARTIO^ 226 Q?1 (X^mTVBQN fiT OT.MEA SB:Hon>bikLStunl^tishiLAfin^ Pr^sent: Ms. Smiita Jaia, Advocate fbr the pgtitioner. Sbri Ajay Dwived^ Deputy Gov^nsinent Advocate for the State/respondlent No. 1 to 3. OKDERfORAL) (Passed on 22nd day ofJun©,2011) 1. At the very outset, leamed coiuisel appearing tbr the petition@F J submits that the petitioner does not w«itto pr^ss fhe reliefclause 10.2, however, since &e transfer order was passed way b^dc <m 15.7.2010 (Anneisui'e P/l), the State may be dire^ed to comply with the said toaaster order aad relieve the petifeioaer to jom tiie new place ofposting. M^ Jamiurther submits that once the ord^r oftransferhas been passedL it is tbr ttie goverament to eiii^re that it is complied with immediately. She relies on a dtecifflou <rfthe Supreme Court iti Sreedam Chandra Ghash v. State afAssam & others , in sii^ort of his conteation Aat if ttie ordey is not c<miplied wifh. a directiott cmi be issiied for entbreem^xt thCTeo£ 2. Shri DwivedL leamed Deputy Govemmetrt Advocate a^yearing forthe State^respoadent No. 1 to 3subinitsthatifthe1iansl:©rorder dated 15.07.2010 (Anne?h,ire P/l) is ^iU in eidstcaice and has not beoi coaq>lied wiffa, appropriate steps would be taken to <x>n^E>ly wifhtheorder. 3. U: tfae afbresaid tramfcr orde^ m still fa existence^ tiie govemm^nt is under an obligatiosn to ccmiply with fhe saaie at once. It is accordmgly directed that tfie transter order stoall be complied with forthwitfi, within a period oftwo weeks. 4. Accordingly. this petitionis disposedof Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1(19%)10SCC567