Partly allowed

Salikram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2024WPS/1923/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joint order disposed two writ petitions challenging successive transfer orders. The single-judge bench set aside both orders as the petitioner completed more than a year and six months at the previous posting after the first stay, granting the petitioner liberty to the State to pass fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned transfer orders dated 01.08.2023 and 15.03.2024 are set aside. Both writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the State to pass afresh orders.

Salikram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 5610 of 2023

¶5

Salikram Yadav S/o Late Kaniram Yadav, Aged about 61 years, R/o Govindpur, Post and Tahsil Kanker, District : North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Forest and Climate Change, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bhanupratappur, District : North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶10

Nadim Krishna Bariha, Posted as Rang Officer, Dugli (General) Range, Forest Division Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

WPS No. 1923 of 2024

¶13

Salikram Yadav S/o Late Kaniram Yadav, Aged about 61 years, Resident of Govindpur, Post and Tahsil - Kanker, District : North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶14

---- Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Forest and Climate Change, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bhanupratappur, District : North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶18

Vijayant Tiwari, Forest Ranger, Antagarh (General) Range, Forest Division West Bhanupratappur, District : North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶19

---- Respondents

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate

¶21

For State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

Page 2 of 3

15.06.2024

Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶27

WPS No. 5610 of 2023

¶28

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging transfer order dated 01.08.2023 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Antagarh (General) Range, Forest Division East Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) to Range Office Kendai (General) Forest Division Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.)

¶29

This Court vide order dated 14.08.2023 has stayed the said transfer order on the count that the petitioner has joined the present place of posting in pursuance of order dated 19.12.2022 and within 7 months, he has been transferred.

¶30

WPS No. 1923 of 2024

¶31

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging transfer order dated 15.03.2024 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Antagarh (General) Range, Forest Division East Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) to Range Offce, Dahikonga (General), Range Kondagaon.

¶32

This Court vide order 28.03.2024 has stayed the transfer order dated 15.03.2024 on the count that the earlier transfer order has already been stayed by this Court and still the impugned transfer order has been passed.

¶33

The transfer order passed in WP(S) No. 5610/2023 was passed

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

on 01.08.2023 wherein in that particular place of posting the petitioner has worked for 7 months when the stay was passed. As such, he is remained posted there for more than one year and six months. Therefore, the transfer order dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure – P/1) passed in WP(S) No. 1923/2024 as well as order transfer order dated 01.08.2023 so far as the transfer order relates to the petitioner is set aside and both the writ petitions are disposed granting liberty to the State to pass afresh order in accordance with law, if exigency so arises.

¶36

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Manish

Salikram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salikram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deendayal Swarnkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Dhalle Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Darash Ram Kenwat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prabhashankar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nilima Gugel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh