1 2025:CGHC:45994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3858 of 2022 * - Dinesh Choubey S/o Late Dwarikanath Choubey Aged About 49 Years Occupation Secretary Gram Panchayat Chattarpur R/o Village Piproul Post Sendur Police Station Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 5 - Banshidhar Yadav Panchayat Secretary Posted At Office Of Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Ms. Akansha Jain, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the the following relief(s):- 10.1 That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be quash the order of transfer dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) which relates to the petitioner and the respondent no. 5. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.15 19:08:52 +0530 2 2. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the services of the petitioner were attached from Gram Panchayat, Chhatarpur to office of Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur pursuant to order dated 27.05.2022 passed by respondent No. 3. He would contend that the decision of respondent is contrary to the Circular issued by the State Government dated 04.06.2001. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Akansha Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 would oppose the submission made by Mr. Awadh Tripathi. She would submit that several complaints were received against the petitioner and therefore, the services of the petitioner were attached to said place. 4. Mr. Topilal Bareth, learned Panel Lawyer would support the contention made by Ms. Akansha Jain. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 6. Considering the fact that the services of the petitioner were attached vide order dated 27.05.2022 contrary to the Circular dated 04.06.2001 issued by the State Government and therefore, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, order dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed. 8. Interim order granted on 02.06.2022 is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti