Lakhanlal Banothe v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2076 of 2015 Lakhanlal Banothe son of Late Shri Parasram Banothe, aged about 52 years, working as Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Panchayat Devkar, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S. - Rakhi, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Under Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S.- Rakhi, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Durg, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Devkar, DistrictBemetara (Chhattisgarh)

5. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr.Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 :

Mr.Dhiraj K. Wankhede, Government Advocate For Respondent No.4 :

Mrs.Pushpa Dwivedi appears on behalf of Mr.A.S.Kacchawaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 07/01/2016 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that services of the petitioner have been transferred from Nagar Panchayat Devkar to Nagar Panchayat Pipriya by order dated 21.9.2010, however, on the basis of interim order passed by this Court on 19.6.2015, he is

continuing at Nagar Panchayat, Devkar. He would further submit that Nagar Panchayat, Devkar has also resolved to absorb the services of the petitioner and his representation is pending consideration, therefore, he may be permitted to make a representation before the State Government for cancellation of his transfer order dated 21.9.2010.

2.

The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable. 3.

The petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the State Government/competent authority. If such representation is preferred within a period of two weeks, the State Government/competent authority shall consider and decide the same within 45 days thereafter. For the aforesaid period of two months, interim order granted by this Court on 19.6.2015 shall remain in operation. 4.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE B/-