High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5516/2017disposed off

Narayan Jaysawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-10-31Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5516 of 2017

1. Narayan Jaysawal S/o Shri Ramchandar Jaysawal, Aged About 55 Years Occupation - Service, Forest Guard Duppi Beet, Rajpur Range Forest Division Balrampur, P. S. - Rajpur, DistrictBalrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Conservator Of Forest Surguja Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

3. The Divisional Forest Officer Balarampur Forest Division, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Jashpur Division, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Baikunthpur Koriya Division, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 31/10/2017

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.08.2017 by which he has been transferred from District Balrampur to District Jashpur on the ground of administrative exigency.

2. The ground raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order is contrary to the transfer policy. The petitioner is working in a scheduled area since a long period and again transferred to the scheduled area.

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 04 weeks from today and thereafter, the concerned competent authority shall consider and decide the same within the next 08 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 status quo, as it exists today, in respect of the petitioner's posting, shall be maintained.

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 Gowri