← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/3994/2017disposed off

Sanjay Paul v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-11-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3994 of 2017 • Sanjay Paul S/o Late J. Mojis, Aged About 46 Years Working As District Sports Officer, Sports And Youth Welfare Department, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Sports And Youth Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Sports And Youth Welfare Department, Indravati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli.

4. Rajendra Daykate, District Sports Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondent-State Ms. K. Tripti Rao, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 30/11/2017 1.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.08.2017, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Mungeli to Raipur on the ground of administrative exigency.

2.

The ground raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without any administrative exigency and as such the same is in violation of the transfer policy issued by the

State Government.

3.

Considering the facts situation of the case, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to prefer a representation before the concerned competent authority raising his grievance against the impugned transfer order.

4.

Let the petitioner prefer representation within a period of 4 weeks from today and thereafter, the concerned competent authority shall consider and decide the same within the next 8 weeks, in accordance with law and on its own merits.

5.

For a period of 12 weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, the interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue.

6.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 7.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Nirala