High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6847/2019disposed off

Jeevan Lal Bhargav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-09-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6847 of 2019 Jeevan Lal Bhargav S/o Late Shri Narayan Bhargav, Aged About 49 Years, Presently Working As Assistant Grade II, O/o Executive Engineer, Maniyari Water Resource Division Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Senior Hydrologist, Divisional Ground Water Survey, Unit No. 9, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate For State :

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 04.09.2019

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-1 dated 09.08.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the Office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Mungeli

to the Office of Senior Hydrologist, Divisional Ground Water Survey, Unit No.9 Bilaspur.

2. The challenge is on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner is the District Secretary of Chhattisgarh Pradesh Lipik Vergiya Shaskiya Karmachari Sangh, Mungeli. The second ground is that the wife of the petitioner is also a Govt. employee and posted at Mungeli, therefore, the order of transfer becomes violative to the transfer policy.

3. Given the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner make a detailed representation to the respondents within a period of 10 days from today and subject to verification of the facts as raised in the representation, the authority concerned shall take a decision within a further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

4. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the effect and operation of the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned shall remain stayed.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai