Disposed

B.n.bande v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jul 2014WPS/3168/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by an Executive Engineer challenging his frequent transfers between districts. The High Court refused quashing and permitted filing fresh representation within a day, promising decision within four weeks, barring coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation within one week. Decision to be rendered within four weeks. No coercive steps until then.

B.n.bande Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

(770
{

¶2

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 i Writ Petition (S) No. g 16% of 2014 KR

¶3

PETITIONER

¶4

PETITIONER : B.N. Bande son of Shri M.R. we,A V ande, aged about 55 y^ears, O “A St posted as Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, ‘ Balodabazar, Police Station-Civil Line, District-Balodabazar (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Rural Engineering Services, Mantralaya New Raipur, P.S.-Rakhi, District— Raipur (C.G.)

¶5

The Collector, Balodabazar, District—Balodabazar (C.G.)

¶6

G.R. Sahu, Executive Engineer, posted as Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Raigarh, District—Raigarh (C‘G.)

¶7

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^"8?;THE

¶8

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶9

w; Cymxég/OW mm. 1412 o.

¶10

Mm (We)

¶11

WWW (‘mranéwww	mmm	mm wm ammm ¥
	SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mu 11-07-2014 Shri Ajay Shrivastava, cou Shri Bhaskar Payashi, F advance copy. Heard. Challenge-is laid to the tl (Annexure P—l) mainly on the been subjected to\ frequent t petitioner ^waspromoted ^Vide was transferred from Raipur to of 15 days, he was again tran Bazar Vide order dated 17—01—72 of f1ve months, the petitioner Baloda Bazar to Raipur.	han Shrivastaira, ^J. nsel for the petitioner/ ^s. ‘anel Lawyer for the State, on ansfer order dated 05-07—2014 round that the petitioner has ansfer. It is stated that the der dated 30-12—2013 and he Kanker and after a short span ferred from Kanker to Baloda 14. Now within a short period again been transferred from s
	I find that the petitioner the ground of frequent transf taken that the. impugned accommodate the respondent placed. proper to allowthe petitioner before the State GOVern'ment r Accordingly, the petiti libertyto flle representation be Considering the aforesai e o	as filed this petition mainly on Though, there is also ground der has been passed to 0.3, but no material has been circumstances, it would be to f11e a fresh representation sing their grievances. is finally disposed off with ore the respondent No.1; It is . r

¶12

p ‘9120 ‘
mm
Wm (Wu)
WWW mw.§fs€fm
maf‘aam r—CQ/
6511mm aga'mm
ordered that if the petitioner ] )refers representation within a
period of one week from tode .y, the same shall be decided
within a period of four week s from the date of receipt of
representation.
Till then, no coercive ste ps shall be taken against the
. petitionef.
Certified copy, as per rule‘ U1 .
‘im- Sd/—
Manindra Mohan Shriv-astava
x
Judge
’I‘umane

B.n.bande v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.n.bande v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Rajput Vs Regional Trasport Authority Raipur and Ors.

Smt. Chandrakanta Devi Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/s Ambachem Industries Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Shyam Kumar Dewangan And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt.veena Pahare And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kamal Mani Patel Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.