High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5774/2017disposed off

Lalit Prasad Ravindra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-11-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5774 of 2017 • Lalit Prasad Ravindra S/o Shri Aghan Ravindra, Aged About 41 Years Working As Rural Agricultural Development Officer, Office Of ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agricultural, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Korba Chhattisgarh.

3. Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Block Development Office, Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

4. Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Block Development Office, Jayjepur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate.

For Respondents Shri Rajendra Tripathi, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 03/11/2017

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.08.2017 by which he has been transferred from District Korba to Jayjepur, District Jangir Champa (Chhattisgarh) on the ground of administrative exigency.

2. The ground raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred without there being any

administrative exigency. By the impugned order the petitioner has been transferred to a distant place and if the petitioner has been relieved from the present place of posting, the petitioner as well as his entire family members shall suffer irreparably.

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 10 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 Akhilesh