1 2025:CGHC:22224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3835 of 2025 1 - Pranav Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Subhash Prasad Mishra Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Under Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Anil Kumar Tiwari Working As Assistant Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dantewada, District - Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G. A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 20/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief:- 2 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting aside/ quashing the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) so far it relates to the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. 10.2 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order is in gross violation of transfer policy dated 03.06.2015 as the petitioner has already served more than 4 years in the scheduled area and again he has been transferred to core scheduled area. 3. State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that transfer policy is only directory not mandatory. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Be that as it may, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.1/ competent authority with regard to ventilating his grievances as projected in the writ petition. Therefore, it is ordered that the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation before respondent No.1 / competent authority within a period of 7 working days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, it is expected that respondent No.1 shall take a decision within a further period of 30 days, till then status quo with regard to posting of the petitioner shall be maintained. 6. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 7. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.05.21 15:39:17 +0530