Anil Kumar Markam v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ANR.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 901 of 2015 • H. R. Dhruw S/o Late Shri S.B. Dhruw, Aged About 49 years Agriculture Extension Officer, Konta Post & Than Konta District Sukma (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Ministry New Raipur (C.G.)

2. Dy. Director Agriculture Department, Sukma, District Sukma (CG) ---- Respondents And WPS No. 878 Of 2015 • Anil Kumar Markam S/o Shri Ramchand Markam Aged About 30 years Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Konta. Post & Thana - Konta. District - Sukma (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Vs

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur (C.G.)

2. Dy. Director Agriculture Department, Sukma, District - Sukma, (C.G.) ---- Respondents And WPS No. 906 Of 2015 • Amit Kumar Kurre S/o Shri C.R. Kurre Aged About 27 years Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Sukma, Post & Thana - Sukma. District Sukma (CG) ---- Petitioner

Vs

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Ministry New Raipur (CG)

2. The Director Directorate Agriculture Chhattisgarh, Raipur

3. Dy. Director Agriculture Department, Sukma, District Sukma (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate.

For Respondents : Shri PK Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 28/07/2015

1. Since all the writ petitions involve common issue and law, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioner H.R. Dhruw in WPS No.901/2015 is working as Agricultural Extension Officer whereas petitioner Anil Kumar Markam in WPS No.878/2015 and petitioner Amit Kumar Kurre in WPS No.906/2015 are working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Chhattisgarh. They are presently posted at Sukma. By order dated 15.7.2014, the petitioners were transferred to Dhamtari, Kondgaon and Raigarh respectively. Since they were not relieved for joining at the present place of posting, they preferred separate writ petitions before this Court, which were disposed of with a direction to the State Government to decide their representation. By the present impugned orders, their representations have been rejected on the ground that they are posted in scheduled area, therefore, in the absence of their reliever, they cannot be allowed to proceed to join at the

transferred place.

3. Learned counsel for the parties would jointly and fairly submit that the matter in issue concerning relieving of Government servant, who has been transferred from scheduled area to non-scheduled area, has been dealt with by this Court in the matter of Smt. Mayanka Upadhyay Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others {WPS No.5913/2014, decided on 2nd March, 2015}.

4. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed in the same terms.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve