C^)^?9. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSeARH AT BILASPUR IC.&.) WRTT PEmTON (S,) N0. Vr^-\ /2010 PETCTIONER ^% ^^y- ^'J^^y ^^y yoy vK1 ^ ' '<»".,• o'- RESPONDENTS T.R. Dewangan, aged 55 years, S/o. Late Barati Ram Dewangan, at present working as a "Head Clerk", in the office of Forrest Sub Division, Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.6.), VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through ; The Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2, Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur, Oistrict Raipur (C.G.), 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.6.). 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), 5. Naresh Kumar Tiwari, at present working as a "Head Clerk", Forest Division, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), + n WRIT PETCTEON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTC- TUTEON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT OR MANt)AMUS/CERTrORARI.ORE)ER/ORE)ERS.DIRECT[QN/ ir^U •—i f f 'i Versus ,K.Dewan State of Chhattisaarh & Others WR!T PET!T!ON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDiA 2. >ent:- Shri Vishnu Kosta, Advocate for t'ne petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Ashok Soni, Advocate forthe resDondent No.5. (Passed on 18'" day of January, 2011) Challenge in this petition, is to the order dated 15/07/2010 (Annexure P/4). The case of t'ne petitioner is that by order dated 24/4/2010 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was promoted from the post of Accountant to Head CIerk and was transferred from Forest Divislon, Korbs to Forest Division, Maro/ahi and the respondent No.5 was transferred from Marwahi to Forest Division, Dharamjaigarh, The pet'tioner as Vi'el! as respondent No.5 joined the new places of their posting. Thereafter, on 15/07/2010 (Annexure three months, the petitioner was again transft Dharamjaigarh and t'ne respondent No.5 has been transferred from Forest Division, Dharamjsiciarh to Forest Division, Marwahi to P/4) within a period of irred from Mawahi to s.a. Leamed counsel further submlts that the respondent No.5 has been working in Forest Dlvislon Marwahi since 1997-98. The fact cleariy indicates that this is not an order of administratlve exigency, but to postthe respondent No.5 at Marwahi aga.in. 'Q :^ 1 3. Shri Soni, iearned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the Jmpugned order dated 15/07/2010 was not passed at his insfance and the respondent No.5 is wiliing to serve at any ptace wherever he is posted by the Government. 4. Shri Sridhar, iearned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that there is no expianation to the aliegation as So why the respondent slo.5, a!l the time was posted at Man'vahi and even within a period of three months, agaln he has been posted at the same piace. The petitioner was dlsturbed without any rhvme and reason as he was transferred to the order on 24/04/2010 oniv. 5. Having regard to the fact situation of the case and looking from ali angles, it appears that the State has not passed the order in administrative exlgency, but presumabiy on oth.er consideration, whi!e Dostina the resDondent No.5 at the same Dlace where he has been workin.q since 1997. in view of foregoing, the transfer order, if has not been given effect to in case of the petitioner as Vi'ell as respondent No.5, the State is directed to reconslder the csse afresh in the llght of above-stated observations and pass appropriate order In accordance with iav^. Accordinaiv, the writ petition stands R •7 s^f'^^ 5»'&%e •i':::