Sharwan Kumar Salam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6609 of 2018 Sharwan Kumar Salam S/o Milan Ram Salam, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Vanpal (Deputy Ranger) Mari Region, Keshkaal, , District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Principle Secretary, School Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. District Forest Officer Keshkaal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

3. Ishwar Singh Kawachi, Vanpal (Deputy Ranger) Mari, Keshkaal Area, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Anurag Jha, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 22/10/2018 1.

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order Annexure-P/3 dated 10/09/2018 whereby the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the directives given by this Court in WPS No. 6416/2017 dated 04/12/2017 has been rejected.

2.

The facts of the case is that, the petitioner Sharwan Kumar Salam as - per the records seems to be a Forest Guard at the Forest Division, Keshkal and vide order dated 06/07/2017, he was made the incharge, Range Assistant for the Forest Range, Mari under the same Forest Division. 3.

It is this order which now stands cancelled vide order dated 10/09/2018.

4.

As a consequence, the petitioner would substantially be treated as an employee of the Forest Division, Keshkal.

5.

The further grievance of the petitioner is that, substantially, they have issued a transfer order for about 150 Forest Guards, but the name of the petitioner does not reflect in the said list. 6.

At this juncture, the State counsel submits that, the fact that the petitioner's name is not reflected in Annexure-P/1 would by itself reflect that, he even today stands substantially posted at the Forest Division, Keshkal and that he would have to discharge his duties at Forest Division, Keshkal itself.

7.

Given the said facts, this Court does not find any substantive grievance which could be made out by the petitioner for the impugned order AnnexureP/3 which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 8.

Accordingly, on the submission of the State counsel, the present Writ Petition stands rejected.

9.

Therefore, it is ordered that the respondent No.2 would ensure that the petitioner is permitted to discharge his duties as Forest Guard at the Forest Division, Keshkal and necessary instructions in this regard would be passed by the authorities concerned.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE