1 2025:CGHC:9047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1728 of 2024 1 - Atul Kumar S/o Shri Hari Ram Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Naurangpur, Teh. Sarangarh, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Planning Economic And Statics Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Economics Economic And Statics, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Director District Planning And Statics Office, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Bimla Kerketta W/o Shri S. Kerketta Aged About 60 Years Working As Assistant Director, District Planning And Statics Office, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Surbhi Jain Posted As Assistant Director, District Planning And Statics Office, Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Md. Sohail Afzal, Advocate For State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Harish Khutiya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 2 20/02/2025 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 / Director, Directorate Of Economics And Statics whereby petitioner has been transferred from Bilaspur to Jashpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers, within a short span of six months. He submits that petitioner has submitted a representation before the concerned authority on 07.03.2024 which has not been considered and is still pending. At this stage he submits that liberty may be granted to petitioner to submit fresh representation before the concerned authority for redressal of his grievance as sought for in this writ petition, however, direction may be issued to respondent authorities to consider and decide representation submitted by petitioner at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submit that they are having no objection to the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. In view of the limited submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit fresh representation before respondent authorities raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition. In the event petitioner submits representation, it shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously. Respondent authorities are 3 further directed not to act upon the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 with respect to petitioner till decision on the representation to be submitted by petitioner. However, respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders while transferring and posting petitioner, if any exigency arise. 6. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna