Disposed¶33

Taj Ahemad Ansari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2025WPS/2200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of Panchayat Secretary quashed on ground that transfer order lost efficacy by afflux of time while petitioner remained at original posting under interim stay dated 31.03.2023; Article 226; WPS No. 2200 of 2023; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; decision 12/08/2025; NAFR; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:40633; Surguja/Lundra; liberty reserved for fresh transfer on exigency; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure-P/1) and 25.01.2023 (Annexure-P/3) quashed; liberty reserved to respondent authorities to pass appropriate transfer orders in case of exigency without being influenced by this order. ¶33

Taj Ahemad Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:40633

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2200 of 2023

¶6

Taj Ahemad Ansari, S/o Nizamuddin Ansari, Aged About 44 Years, Working On The Post Of Panchayat Secretary, Village Panchayat Kot, Permanent R/o Village And Post Lamgaon, Police Station & Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2. The Collector Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Surguja, Ambikapur, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate.
For State/Respondents No.1 & 2	: Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L.
For Respondents No.3 & 4	: Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

12/08/2025

¶19

1. This petition has been preferred preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 20.03.2023

¶20

Digitally DEEPTI signed by JHA DEEPTI NIRALA JHA NIRALA

¶21

¶22

(Annexure-P/1) and 25.01.2023 (Annexure-P/3) by seeking following reliefs,

¶23

which are as under:-

¶24

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notices to the respondents, returnable within early date of hearing.

¶25

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure-P/1) issued in respect of the petitioner.

¶26

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶27

10.4 Cost of the petition.”

¶28

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is challenging the transfer order dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure-P/3), which has been stayed by the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that presently petitioner is working at Village Panchayat Kot.

¶29

3. Vide order dated 31.03.2023, stay order was passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

4. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the fact that on the strength of the aforesaid stay order, the petitioner is still continuing at his original place of posting, as such the order transferring the petitioners, by the afflux of time, has lost its efficacy and as such the orders dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure-P/1) and 25.01.2023 (Annexure-P/3) are required to be quashed and accordingly the said orders under challenge are hereby quashed.

¶31

5. However, liberty is granted to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in respect of transfer of the petitioner, in case exigency arises, without being influenced by this order.

¶32

¶33

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed

¶34

of.

¶35

SD/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

Taj Ahemad Ansari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taj Ahemad Ansari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Sav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lalita Vs South Eastern Coalfield, Limited

Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Dolly Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sujata Gorla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh