1 2025:CGHC:22714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3620 of 2025 1 - Jugal Kishor Uraon S/o Late Shri Munku Uraon Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Balpur, Tahsil - Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Under Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal New Government College Nagarda, District - Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Principal New Government College Chandrapur, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.10 17:40:00 +0530 2 09/06/2025 1. The challenge in the present petition is the transfer order dated 07-01-2025, whereby the petitioner's services have been transferred from Govt. Naveen Mahavidyalaya, Chandrapur, District Sakti to Govt. Naveen Mahavidyalaya, Nagarda, District Sakti. The petitioner has also claimed a direction to the Respondent No. 1 to decide his pending representation (Annexure P/8). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the order dated 07-01-2025, the petitioner, who is working as Lab Technician at Govt. Naveen Mahavidyalaya, Chandrapur, District Sakti, has been transferred to Govt. Naveen Mahavidyalaya, Nagarda, District Sakti and in compliance of the order dated 07-01-2025, he has joined on his transferred place of posting on 20-01-2025 (Annexure P/6). He would also submit that the petitioner is differently abled person and he cannot be transferred at the place, which is far away from his native place. There is a circular dated 30th August 2010 issued by the State Government with respect to the placement of the differently abled employees nearby the places of their residence. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that after joining in his transferred place of posting, he moved his representation on 06-01-2025, 04-02-2025, 01-03-2025 and 03-03-2025 to re-transfer him on his earlier place of posting. But the same has not been considered till date by the respondent authorities and a direction may be issued to them to consider his pending representation. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that since the petitioner has already joined on his new place of posting, his cause of action is over. The circular dated 30.08.2010 is only an instruction with respect to the place of posting of the differently abled employees. He would also submit that by the transfer order dated 07-01-2025, the petitioner has been transferred in the same district and the circular dated 30th August 2010 itself shows that the differently abled employees may be transferred as practically as possible in their home district and in the present case also, the district of the place of posting of the petitioner has not been changed. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that in compliance of the transfer order dated 07-01-2025, the petitioner has joined on the new place of posting i.e. Govt. Naveen Mahavidyalaya, Nagarda, District Sakti on 20-01-2025. When the petitioner himself had joined on his new place of posting, his challenge to the transfer order dated 07-01-2025 itself is over and his transfer order cannot be quashed on this ground. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the representations made by the petitioner, it would deem it proper to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representations made by the petitioner (Annexure P/8) in accordance with law as early as possible. 4 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representations of the petitioner (Annexure P/8) as early as possible preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved