High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6902/2021disposed off

Rajesh Kumar Gandhi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-12-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.6902 of 2021 Rajesh Kumar Gandhi, S/o Shri Yogendra Singh Gandhi, A/o 56 years, working as Assistant Grade-III, Janpad Panchayat Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) R/o Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. & P.O.-Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)

2. Director, Directorate of Panchayat, Sector-19, North Block, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)

3. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (CIDC), (Transportation Division), through its Managing Director, Amanaka, Raipur (CG)

4. The Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (CG)

5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG)

6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Res.No.1, 2 & 4 : Mr.Amrito Das, Addl.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 15/12/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa on deputation from Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (CIDC), whereas he has been transferred by respondent No.5 without jurisdiction and without authority of law as he has no jurisdiction to transfer the

petitioner and for which, he may be allowed to make a representation to respondent No.2 within two weeks from today, which may be directed to be considered and decided expeditiously.

2. Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to respondent No.2 within two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, respondent No.2 would do well to consider and decide the same within further six weeks from its receipt and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. For the period of six weeks, the impugned order of transfer shall not be given effect to. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

3. With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed off. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge B/-