High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6468/2017disposed off

Ved Prakash Parihar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-11-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6468 of 2017 • Ved Prakash Parihar S/o Shri Sadhram Parihar Aged About 46 Years Occupation Service, Working As - Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Office Of Sr. Agriculture Development Offier, Block - Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, R/o Ward No. 20 Pendarakapa Police Station Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Department Of Krishi Avam Jaiv Pradhyogiki Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Department Of Agriculture District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

4. The Deputy Director , Department Of Agriculture District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate.

For Respondents Shri Sameer Behar, P.L.

Order On Board 28/11/2017

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.08.2017 by which he has been transferred from the office of Sr. Agriculture Development Officer, Block Lormi District Mungeli to the option of Deputy Director (Agri.) Kandagoan on the ground of administrative exigency.

2. The ground raised by the petitioner is that the son of the petitioner is studying at Jawahar Navodaya vidyalay and in the event of the transfer of the petitioner, 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 04 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 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