← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/401/2017disposed off

Dev Sai Minj v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-01-24Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 401 of 2017 Dev Sai Minj S/o Late Juglal Ram, Aged About 42 Years Patwari, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Tahsildar, Lundra, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Tahsildar, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For State :

Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 24/01/2017 Heard.

1.

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite order passed by the State Government on 30.12.2016, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur is flouting the order of the Government and not allowing the petitioner's joining though Tahsildar has passed an order on 03/04.01.2017 in compliance of the transfer order and the Government's order of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur relieving and allowed him to work.

2.

Prima facie, it appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur is flouting the order of the Government. Once the State Government, itself, passed an order of relieving dated 30.12.2016, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur has no option but to comply with the same. The petitioner has already been allowed to work by an

order of Tahsildar on 03/04.01.2017. The order dated 09.01.2017 of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur shall not be given any effect to.

3.

A copy of this order shall be submitted to the Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja for making appropriate enquiry against the concerned SDO, as prima facie, it seems that the SDO has flouted the order of the Government and take appropriate action, if upon enquiry, the officer is found to have disobeyed the Government order. 4.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha