S. L. Dansena v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.909 of 2016 S.L. Dansena, son of Shri Tilakram Dansena, aged about 60 years, working as Senior Assistant, Paddy/Fertilizer Store Centre, Katghora, District Korba (CG).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur (CG).

2.

The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Raipur (CG).

3.

The General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Headquarter, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG).

4.

The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Headquarter, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG). 5.

Lal Singh Dewangan, posted as Area Assistant, District Office, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG).

--- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri V.R. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Dy.G.A.

For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 29/03/2016 (1) Heard.

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined in the office of Paddy/Fertilizer Store Centre, Katghora, District Korba vide order dated 15.05.2015 and within 09 months from earlier transfer order dated 04.05.2015 (Annexure P/7), he has now again transferred from Paddy/Fertilizer Store Centre,

Katghora, District Korba to District Office, Balrampur by the impugned transfer order dated 27.02.2016 passed by respondent No.4Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation, Limited, Raipur, against which, he has made representation to the respondent No.2 vide dated 01/02.03.2016 (Annexure P/9), which is pending consideration before respondent No.2 and therefore, direction may be issued to the respondent No.2 to decide the same expeditiously.

(3) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the pending representation of the petitioner for redressal of his grievance shall be considered by the competent authority within a period of three weeks from today.

(4) Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

(5) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, in terms of statement made by learned counsel for the respondents. (6) For a period of four weeks, the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 27.02.2016, in respect of the petitioner shall remain stayed.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-