1 2025:CGHC:38042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8914 of 2025 1 - Pushpakali Kuldeep D/o Shri C.S. Kuldeep Aged About 49 Years Working As Inspector (Gramodyog), Office of Jila Panchayat, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Rural Industries (Gramodyog Vibhag), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh Khadi And Rural Industries Board, Gandhi Bhawan, Keyur Bhushan Memorial Complex, Kankali Para, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 01.08. 202 5 1. Challenge in this petition is the order of transfer dated 27.06.2025 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Dhamtari to Gariyaband. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a case of frequent transfer. He would submit that vide order dated 22.07.2024 the petitioner was transferred from Balod to Dhamtari and only within a 2 short span of one year she has again been transferred from Dhamtari to Gariyaband. Raising all her grievances she has made a representation to the respondent No.2 on 02.07.2025 and prayed for quashing of her transfer order but till date her representation has not been decided and therefore the authority may be directed to consider and decide her representation in accordance with law within stipulated time period. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that earlier the petitioner was transferred on her own request vide order dated 22.07.2024 and thereafter on account of administrative exigency she was transferred from Dhamtari to Gariyaband vide order dated 27.06.2025 which does not come under frequent transfer as earlier transfer order was passed on her own request. The transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 is not applicable in the respondent No.2/Board. The counsel for respondent No.2 would further submit that since the petitioner has already made representation before the respondent No.2 which is pending consideration, therefore, he does not have any objection if a direction is issued to the respondent authority to take a decision on the pending representation within specified time period, if already not decided. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 5. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, in particular the submission of the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner is challenging her transfer order dated 27.06.2025 for which she has already made representation on 02.07.2025 before the respondent No.2, this court deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ 3 petition directing the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2025, if already not decided, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law on its own merit. Till then status quo with respect to posing of the petitioner shall be maintained by the parties. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this order to respondent No.2 within a week from today. 6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder