a“ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATFISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4H?— OF 2006 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA c PETITIONER : Lalmani Mishra Son of Late Shri x Heeralal Mishra, aged about 51 “A” years Occupation-Service, Presently ......... workmg as Revenue Inspector , R I eme$§w%xo CIrCIe Baramkela, Tahs1r Sarangarh Dlstrlct Ralgarh (C G ) éa’taé VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through :/ The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). 2: The Deputy Secretary, Department of /' Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 3: The Commissioner, (Land Records),/ Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Collector, District Raigarhf' (C.G.). Roshanl- Having heard learned counsel for the partiee and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, witho expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the petitioner is allowed to ma e a detailed representation raising all his grievances to respondent No.1 within .10 days from today along with copy of this petition & annexures and in tum, resp ndent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 30 da s from the date of receipt of representation in accordance with iaw after considerin all the points raised by the petitioner. ion of the representation the effect and ln' the meantime, till the dec operation of impugned order dated 717.2006 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner shall remained stayed. With the direction aforesaid, the Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.316 Certified copy as per rules. petition stands disposed of. 8106 also stands disposed o f / ' Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge P.T.O. XI—HC-78 3am, m,W ' w.€.N¢.-%z<a/§.6... WWWW 1H 200 m$rfhi$ mm(W) W ma‘r' ffwW wmm MWWW %aa%u$n%$ (. 11.8.2006 Mr. Bhaskar Pyashi, Advocate for the petitioner. MLGK. Beriwai, Dy. Advocate Eeneral for the State on advance copy‘ Heard. By this petition, the petitione' has chaiienged his transfer order dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) whereby he has been transferred from District Sarguja to District Jashpur. The main grievance of the petitioner is that being the Revenue inspector his seniority is being maintained at the district ievei and if the order impugned is allowed to be executed, then the senioity of the petitioner shail be affected, I‘ in the circumstance, learned :ounsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make a detailed representation to respondent No.1 and in turnl he be directed to decide th e same in accordance with law.