1 2025:CGHC:20656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3200 of 2025 1 Gyaneshwar Anand S/o Shri Devi Prasad Anand Aged About 32 Years Posted As Forest Guard (Bfo) At Range Sahaspur Lohara Forest Division Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Forest Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 Chief Conservator Of Forest Forest Circle Durg (C.G.) 3 Divisional Forest Officer Division Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 Forest Range Officer Range Sahaspur Lohara Division Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Chandrikaditya Pandey on behalf of Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.05.07 10:38:36 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06/05/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is questioning the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, by which the petitioner who is working as Forest Guard has been directed to work under the guidance of Divisional Forest Officer, Mohla. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Circle Durg is contrary to law as the impugned order of attachment cannot be passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order is work distribution order and not attachment order by which the petitioner is directed to work under the guidance of Divisional Forest Officer, Mohla looking to the emergent situation of fire in the forest during the summer season. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and impugned order. 5. Perusal of the documents shows that the petitioner is a forest guard posted at Kawardha and is directed to work in the Divisional Forest Office, Mohla looking to the emergent situation of fire in the 3 forest during the summer season. The order impugned is a work distribution order. 6. Considering the same, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order and as the petitioner who is an employee of Forest Division has to work as per the work distribution looking to the situation and exigency of service. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti