← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6419/2016disposed off

Satyajeet Vishwas v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-11-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6419 of 2016 • Satyajeet Vishwas S/o Late Shri Sushil Vishwas, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Assistant Fisheries Officer In The Officer Of Assistant Director Fisheries Raigarh P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh, Civil & Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Fisheries Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director Fisheries, Indiravati Bhawan, Directorate New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Deputy Director, Fisheries, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

4. Shri Kranti Kumar Baghel, Assistant Fisheries Officer In The Officer Of Assistant Director Fisheries Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 21/11/2017 1.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the Office of Assistant Director, Fisheries, Raigarh to the Office of Assistant Director, Fisheries, Jashpur showing administrative exigency. On 25.11.2016, this Court allowed the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting

and since thereafter, the petitioner is enjoying the interim relief. 2.

Learned State counsel would submit that since the petitioner is enjoying interim relief for last about one year, the respondents may be permitted to pass fresh transfer order, if any administrative exigency arises.

3.

In view of the above, it is directed that respondents shall not insist upon the implementation of impugned transfer order, however, they would be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law on the basis of obtaining administrative exigency. 4.

In view of the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Nirala