Puranjan Lal Indoriya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 8033 OF 2019 • Puranjan Lal Indoriya, S/o Shri Kartik Ram Indoriya, aged about 46 years, presently posted as Sub Engineer, Nagar Palika Dallirajhara, District Balod (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2.

Shri Jitendra Kumar Jangade, posted as Sub Engineer, Nagar Panchayat, Chhura, District Gariyaband (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate along with Ms. M. Asha, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 27/09/2019 1.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has moved the following applications today:

i) I.A. No.2 - Application for taking documents on record and for amendment in the writ petition.

ii) I.A. No.3 - Application for grant of ad-interim relief. iii) I.A. No.4 - Application for taking documents on record. 2.

On due consideration, I.A. No.2 and I.A. No.4 are allowed and the documents are taken on record. Let necessary amendment in this regard be carried out by the petitioner during the course of the day itself. 3.

With the consent of the parties, heard the matter finally at admission stage. 4.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23.9.2019 (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Nagar Palika Parishad, Dallirajhara to Nagar Panchayat, Sahaspurlohara by modifying the earlier transfer order dated 17.9.2019 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner was transferred from Nagar Palika Parishad, Dallirajhara to Nagar Panchayat, Chhura.

5.

Without entering into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner wants that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation

to the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities in turn may decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

6.

Not opposed by the learned State Counsel.

7.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that he, if so chooses, may prefer a detailed representation to the respondent authorities. Considering the fact that it is a case of transfer, the respondent authorities may decide it as expeditiously as possible. 8.

I.A. No.3 also stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ JUDGE