← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/4360/2014disposed off

Pramod Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2015-09-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 4360 of 2014 Pramod Shukla S/o Shri Hetram Shukla, Aged about 57 Years, Presently working as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, C.G.

2. The Under Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Raipur, C.G.

3. Mr. Vinod Pandey, Chief Municipal Officer, presently working as Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Riapur Distt. Raipur, C.G.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri U. N. S. Deo, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 18/09/2015 Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 19.08.2014 Annexure P-1 whereby the earlier transfer order issued on 14.07.2014 has been modified.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that on an earlier occasion the petitioner was transferred from Mahasamund to Raigarh vide order dated 14.07.2014 which has already been acted upon. He submits that within less than a month, the respondents again issued the impugned order dated 19.08.2014 transferring the petitioner from Raigarh to Raipur. He further submits that by virtue of an interim protection granted by this Court on 25.08.2014, the petitioner continues to discharge his duties at Municipal Corporation, Raigarh.

3.

At this juncture, on instruction, State counsel makes a submission that since the petitioner has an interim protection in his favour for over an year, the State as of now would not insist upon the execution of the impugned order. However, the State may be granted liberty to pass fresh order as and when the need so arises.

4.

In the light of the submission made by the State counsel, nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon.

5.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty as prayed by the State counsel.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Bhola