1 2026:CGHC:19647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3636 of 2026 1 - Smt. Liligrace Karketta W/o Rajesh Karketta Aged About 54 Years Incharge Branch Manager (Asst. Accountant) District Co-Operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Branch Batouli, Dist- Sarguja (C.G.) R/o Subhash Nagar, Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Chief Executive Officer District Co-Operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - President District Co-Operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Sheshmani Mishra Aged About 55 Years Incharge Branch Manager (Asst. Accountant) Branch Lundra, District Co-Operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Dist- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 28/04 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and quash the 2 impugned transfer order dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure P/11) so far as it relates to the petitioner. 10.2 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petition, may be allowed, with cost.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Accountant and she has been subjected to frequent shifting from office to another and in most of the time by way of attachment. He contended that within a period of 02 years, 10 months, petitioner has been shifted to about 07 places. He also contended that the order under challenge is also not by way of transfer, but the petitioner was only directed to work in the head office as Field Officer. She is a lady aged about 54 years and according to the circular/directives issued by the Respondents,an employee can be considered for shifting/transfer after their completion of 3 years of posting. Petitioner has already submitted representation before the Respondent No. 1 which too was not considered and therefore, direction be issued to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner at the earliest within specified time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 2 would submit that pursuant to the observation made by this Court in pre-lunch session, he has sought instructions and according to his instructions, as of now, the petitioner is permitted to work at Batauli, because the Respondent No. 3 after joining the said post, went on leave. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit representation within a period of 10 days before the Respondents No. 1 & 2 and if such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, concerned authority shall consider and take 3 decision on the representation to be submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of representation. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY