Chattisgarh High Court
Ayodhya Prasad Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh 82 Wps/1880/2019 ... on 15 March, 2019
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1763 OF 2019
Ayodhya Prasad Kashyap S/o Chhunni Lal Kashyap Aged About 58 Years
R/o Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Capital
Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Urban Administration And Development Directorate, Indrawati
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development, Regional Office
Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Ms. Rashul Bhawnani, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 15.03.2019
1. The grievance of the petitioner in this petitioner is the order of transfer dated 02.03.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Council, Tifra to Municipal Council, Narayanpur.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that in the past during the short span of 1 and ½ years time the petitioner has been subjected to three transfers. According to the petitioner, he was first transferred on 12.10.2017 from Takhatpur to Katghora. The petitioner joined at Katghora only on 03.11.2017. Having worked there for couple of months, the petitioner was again transferred on 12.03.2018 from Katghora to the present place i.e. Tifra. The petitioner joined at Tifra only on 05.04.2018 on being relieved from Katghora on 02.04.2018. Barely having worked at the present place of posting for about 11 months, the petitioner has again been transferred vide order dated 02.03.2019 from Municipal Council Tifra to Municipal Council, Narayanpur.
2
3. Given the aforesaid undisputed factual matrix of the case, let the petitioner make a detailed representation to the respondent No.1 within a period of 10 days from today in addition to any representation already made, and the respondent No.1 in turn shall consider and decide the representation at the earliest preferably within a further period of 30 days. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided by the respondent No.1, there shall be stay of the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 02.03.2019 so far as the petitioner is concerned.
4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder