← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/600/2016disposed off

Dev Prasad Paikara v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-02-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.600 of 2016 Dev Prasad Paikara, S/o Shri Kalsai Paikara, aged about 34 years, presently working as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Champa, Block & Janpad Panchayat Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Pachayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur.

2.

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG).

3.

Deputy Director, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur. 4.

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha District Jashpur (CG).

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate.

For Respondents : Shri S.P. Kale, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 26/02/2016 (1) Heard.

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Champa, Block Bagicha and he has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Champa to Gram Panchayat Ekamba by the impugned transfer order dated 05.02.2016 passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Director, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur contrary to the instructions of the State Government dated

29.08.2008, against which, he has preferred representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, which is pending consideration and, therefore, direction may be issued to the said authority to decide the same expeditiously. (3) Be that as it may, if the petitioner makes additional representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur within a period of ten days from today, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur would do well to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law keeping in view the instruction of the State Government dated 29.08.2008.

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

(5) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and the competent authority may decide the representation of the petitioner on its own merit. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-