← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1242/2015disposed off

Sunil Samrath v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2015-04-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1242 of 2015 • Sunil Samrath S/O Shri Balram Singh Samrath, Aged About 38 years Patwari, P.H.No. 25, Konta, Post & Thana Konta, Distt. Sukma, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Ministry New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector (Land Record) Sukma, District Sukma, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Tahsildar, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri SK Verma, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 3\State :

Shri Shashank Thakur, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 09/04/2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashment of the order passed by the Collector, Sukma and for further direction to the said officer for relieving the petitioner from the present place of posting within two weeks.

2.

Vide order dated 15-7-2014, issued by the State Government, the petitioner was transferred from district Sukma to district Baster. When the petitioner

was not relieved, he preferred a writ petition being WP (S) No.4467/2014, which was disposed of on 29-8-2014 directing the respondents to relieve the petitioner from the present place of posting subject to observance of any other instructions issued by the State Government regarding relieving an employee working in the scheduled area.

3.

By a contempt petition filed by the petitioner, this Court permitted the petitioner to file representation before the Collector, Sukma. The impugned order has been passed while deciding the petitioner's representation. 4.

In a similar matter being WP (S) No.1070/15, this Court has quashed a similar order and directed the concerned Collector/SDO (Revenue) to relieve the petitioner forthwith, so as to enable him to join at the transferred place.

5.

Accordingly, present impugned order is also quashed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join at the transferred place. JUDGE ashu