Karunanidhi Panigrahi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6807 of 2016 Karunanidhi Panigrahi S/o Shri Abhimanyu Panigrahi, Aged About 37 Years R/o Nagar, Palika Bacheli, Old Market, Police Station Bacheli, Tahsil And District Dantedawa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. & Post Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Bhuvnesh Yadav, Aged About 41 Years Managing Director C.G. State Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. R/o C.G. State Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam, Limited Telibandha, Police Station Telibandha, G.E. Road, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Assistant Manager, Presently Posted As Incharge Bio Fertilizer Plant , Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri B. Gop Kumar, Dy. A.G.

S.B.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 16/12/2016 Heard.

The transfer order dated 14.10.2016 and 20.10.2016 as also order dated 18.11.2016 is under challenge by the petitioner that he has been subjected to frequent shifting from one place to the other place. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is being shifted from one office at Raipur to other office at Raipur to accommodate respondent No.3.

2.

I find that by impugned order, the petitioner has only been locally adjusted from one office to other office at Raipur, even

-2headquarter has not changed. Therefore, in these circumstances, I do not find that the frequency of the order has resulted in any hardship or prejudice to the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised an apprehension that if he is posted as In-charge of the Showroom, there may be some administrative problems in release of his salary. 4.

The apprehension appear to be unfounded. Once the petitioner has been posted as In-charge of the showroom, it should not come in the way of payment of his salary.

5.

However, by way of abundant caution, it is observed that the petitioner's salary shall be duly paid to him and in case, there is any difficulty, it will always be open for the petitioner to approach this Court.

6.

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha