Avinash Emmanuel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4960 of 2021

1. Avinash Emmanuel S/o Shri Suresh Emmanuel Aged About 35 Years R/o Achanakmar Tiger Reserve, Lamni, Tahsil and District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distrcit - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest And Chief Forest Force Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Deputy Director Achanakmar Tiger Reserve Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

For respondents :

Shri Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13.09.2021.

1. Aggrieved of the impugned order dated 01.09.2021, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner earlier posted as Forest Ranger, Jatga, Katghora was transferred to the office of Deputy Director, Achanakmar Tiger Reserve, Lormi vide order dated 12.02.2021. The said order was passed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner immediately complied with the order and took the charge. Barely six months down the respondent No.2 has again now vide impugned order dated 01.09.2021 shifted the petitioner from Achanakmar Tiger Reserve, Lormi, to Forest Range, Chhaparwa.

3. That, the order of change of place of posting has been assailed firstly on the ground of it being frequent shifting of petitioner and secondly on the ground of competency of the respondent No.2 in the issuance of the impugned order.

-24. This court, for the reason that it was the same authority's order which the petitioner has accepted when he was brought to the present place of posting and secondly the place of posting where the petitioner has been now shifted is barely 10-20 KMs from the present place of posting, and as such the same would not cause great inconvenience to the petitioner. Needless to mention that the petitioner would have a right to approach the respondents No.1&2 in respect of his grievance, if any, and for modifying the place of posting, if any.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Needless to mention that this court has not expressed any opinion so far as competency of the authorities concerned. The same would be decided in an appropriate petition at a later stage.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder