1 2025:CGHC:6088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 921 of 2025 1 - Ashwani Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Vishnu Prasad Yadav Aged About 36 Years Jeep Driver, Posted At Milk Plant, Babu Semra, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Through- Its Managing Director, Urla, Post- Bmy Charouda, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - In-Charge Milk Plant, Babu Semra, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/02/2025 1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is well qualified person and he is a regular employee of the respondent federation and holding the substantive post of Jeep Driver, however, looking to the work convenience and shortage of the regular employee, vide order dated 22.04.2022, the respondent had Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.04 19:54:19 +0530 2 directed the petitioner to take over the current charge of the milk plant of Jagdalpur, the petitioner had taken the current charge of milk plant under the protest by informing the authority as he has not the technical expert of the dairy technology, therefore he had not be responsible for any mistake for running the milk plant. The petitioner performed his duty very sincerely and satisfactory since 23.04.2022 and made all the afford for batter production and increasing the sales of the dairy product of the respondent. Looking into the work performance of the class-III category, employee, the anonymous complaint has been made by some officer of the federation, and the said complaint was examine by the higher authority and constituted the committee for inquiry, therefore the high label committee inspect the milk plant as well as the work of the petitioner and after inspection, the committee of the respondent federation appreciated the work of the petitioner and submitted the report which is forwarded by the respondent No.1 before the State government. When some person not succeeded to disturb the growth of the milk plant, then they are started the harassment of the petitioner, feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner vide letter dated 26.09.2024 had submitted his resignation and raised his voice through the representation dated 12.11.2024. However, no any positive steps have been taken by the respondent No.1 against the person those are harassed the petitioner and rejected the resignation of the petitioner on 17.01.2025 (wrongly mentioned the dated as 17.01.2024) and on same day the service of the petitioner has been transferred from Milk Plant Babu Semra, Jagdalpur to Milk Chilling Centre, Basna (C.G.), whereas the post of Jeep driver is not sanctioned or required in the Milk Chilling Centre and the impugned order has been issued as punishment of the petitioner because he had raised his voice against the higher officer of the federation and just before one day of the charge taken by the National 3 Dairy Development Board, the impugned order has been issued by the respondent No.1. Hence this petition. 2. Hence this petition. 2. Following reliefs have been sought in this petition: “I. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be please to issue the appropriate writ, order (s), direction (s) against the respondent authority and quash the impugned order dated 17/01/2025 (ANNEXURE- P/1) issued by the Respondent No. 1, by declaring the same is bad in law. II. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate direction to the respondent authority to not transfer the services of the petitioner until and unless the respondent authority promoted the petitioner to the next higher post. III. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be please issue the suitable direction to the respondent authority for tacking appropriate action against the responsible officers of the federation who has harassed the petitioner. IV. Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before the respondents authorities for redressal of his grievance and the respondents authorities may be directed to decide the representation in accordance with law at an early date. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4 5. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the respondents authorities within one week and the respondents authorities are directed to decide the representation in accordance with law within three weeks. Till decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner by the respondents authorities, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh