J IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.PJS) No: Of 2011 PETITIONER »»;•' / Surendra Singh S/o, Shri Ramjeet Singh, aged about 55 years, working as Clerk Assistant Grade-II, ,,.-''X<i.}>^".. in the office of Sub Divisional y ^ ^v ^rv^'- .-• Officer, Pratappur, District Surguja ^"^>'^\)^v <r^\ ,.--\&\ ^^ 1>-.»J.) ,^ ^"^i ...-••-^o Versus RESPONDENTS :1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S.Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) ^ :2) Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) :3) Sub Divisional Officer, Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) 'ky^.^ ;!^£.. WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQNQFLINDIA 1. PARTICULARS QFTH_E_PETITIONER :- Asstated above in the Cause Title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS :- As stated above in Cause Title. PARTICULARS _QF_ THE _ORDERZCAUSE AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS BEING MADE :- " i^-t'^'Sv 1 •^^S-t^^ ^ -^ HiGH COURTQE CMHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRrLPETmQN.{Sl _57^_QF..2811 PETITIONER Surendra Singh Versus , , State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS IM. u-\- (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutlon of India) Singte Benori: Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. : Present:- Shri M.K.Bhaduri, Advooateforthepetittoner. , Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ; „ORQER (Passed on tftts-2611' day of September, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is tothe order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/1), whereby, ttie petitioner, working as Assistant Grade-2 atthe office of Sub Dhrisional Officer, Pratappur, has been transferred to Janpad Panchayat, Batauli, on administrative grounds. - 2. SHri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petffioner submits that the impugned transfer order is violative of the circular dated 24.06.1998 read with circular dated 25.08.2004, as the petitfoner is theSecretar/ of the Chhattlsgarh Karmchari Congress, District Branch Surguja. Under the ctrcuter dated 24.06.1996, it is provideci that the office bearers of the recognized employee's union viz. Presldent and Secretary shall not be transferred for three years when they are holding the post. The petitioner was nominated as Seoretary of Chhattlsgarh Karmohari Congress vide order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure P/2). Thus, the impugned transfer opder is bad in law anct deserves to be quashed. 3. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after more than two montiis, thus, the importance of questionlng the transfer order does not sun/ive, as it appears that the transfer has been chalienged on aooount of the faot tliat in some oases, the transfer of an office bearers has been oancelled. If the transfer order has been complied with, there is no question of reconsidering the validity of the same. However, If It is stitl not complied with, the same shall not be given effect to. ! ' 4. The transfer is an inoidence of service and the petrtioner, in all matters is not tlkely to suffer, if ths petitioner has already accepted by joining the new place of posting. Thus, at this stage, It is not proper to examine the legality and vaUdity rf the impugned transfer order. • 5. As a result, if the petitioner has already not been relleved, the transfer order dated 15fl July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) In respect ofthe petifioner, shall not be given effect to. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition disposed of. No order asto oosts. ^^fb»t" iudy