Shekh Abdul Mannan v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2700 of 2015 • Shekh Abdul Mannan S/o Shekh Suleman, Aged about 48 years Working as Panchayat Secretary, at Gram Panchayat Mulakisholi, District Sukma, R/o Block Colony Konta, Tahsil Konta, PS Konta, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) • The Collector Sukma, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh) • The Chief Executive OfÏcer, Jila Panchayat Sukma, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh) • The Chief Executive OfÏcer, Janpad Panchayat Konta, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh) • Sai Shrinu Working as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Nagalgunda, Janpad Panchayat Konta, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioners Mr. Mateen Siddique, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 29/7/2015 Heard.
(2) Challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 17.07.2015 (Annexure P/1), whereby, the petitioner, who is working on the post of Panchayat Karmi, has been transferred from Gram
Panchayat Mulakisholi to Gram Panchayat Gaganpalli. (3) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before the respondent authorities raising his grievances in respect of his transfer.
(4) No objection from the other side.
(5) Looking to the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent authorities within a period of 15 days and thereafter, the competent authorities is directed to consider and decide his representation in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. (6) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law on its own merits.
Sd/- J u d g e (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna