Rishiraj Panuriya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5289 of 2016 Rishiraj Panuriya S/o Shri Meghraj Panuriya, Aged About 36 Years Assistant Grade- Il, Office Of Project Officer Integrated Child Development Scheme, Geedam ( Barsoor), Distt. Dantewada, R/o Village Kasturbod, Block Baghbehera, Distt. Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue Distt. Mahasamund, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director, Women And Child Development Department, Indrawati Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada, District Dantewada, (Chhattisgarh)

4. District Program Officer, Women And Child Development Department, Basoor, Distt. Dantewada, (Chhattisgarh)

5. The Project Officer, Women And Child Development Department, Basoor, Distt. Dantewada, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Suresh Kumar Gajbhiye Assistant Grade- Il, Office Of District Project Officer, Mawabi, Distt. Jagadalpur (Bastar) (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State :

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 06/10/2016 Heard on admission.

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite there being an order of the State Govt. passed on 30.7.2016, the petitioner is not being relieved.

2. Learned counsel for the State submits that as the petitioner is posted in a scheduled area, as per the transfer policy dated 11.6.2016, unless his

-2reliever joins, the petitioner cannot be relieved.

3. The issue regarding implementation of transfer order, has been considered by this Court in the case of Ms. Manisha Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2015(4) C.G.L.J.182, wherein relying upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, it has been held by this Court that once the employee has been transferred, it is required to be complied with unless it is modified, varied or cancelled.

4. Therefore, in these circumstances, either the transfer order has to be implemented or the State has the option to cancel, vary or modify or keep in abeyance.

5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with the direction that if the transfer order of the petitioner is not cancelled, varied or kept in abeyance by the respondent-Transferring Authority, the petitioner would be required to be relieved towards implementation, execution of the transfer order. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen