Rajendra Kumar Korram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2614 Chatt

                                          -1-


                                                                                NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                        Writ Petition (S) No. 5256 of 2021

   1. Rajendra Kumar Korram S/o Brijlal Korram Aged About 42 Years R/o
      Makan No. - 86, Village Urraiya, Tehsil Narharpur, District - Uttar Baster,
      Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---Petitioner(s)
                                 Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School
      Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Atal
      Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
   2. Under Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan,
      Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
      Chhattisgarh.
   3. The District Education Officer Uttar Bastar Kanker, District Uttar - Bastar,
      Kanker Chhattisgarh.
   4. The District Education Officer Kondagaon, District Kondagaon,
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Shobhit Kosta, Advocate. For State : Shri Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

29.09.2021 .

1. The petitioner has filed this petition on the grievance that though the

transfer order has been issued on 21.08.2019, he is not being relieved.

The transfer has been made on the request made by the petitioner on the

ground that he was a person with disability.

2. The issue regarding implementation of transfer order has been considered

by this Court in the case of Ms. Manisha Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

and others, 2015(4) C.G.L.J.182, wherein relying upon several judgments

of the Supreme Court it has been held by this Court that once the

employee has been transferred it is required to be complied with unless it

is modified, varied or cancelled.

3. Therefore, in these circumstances, either the transfer order has to be

implemented or the State has the option to cancel, vary or modify or keep

in abeyance.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if the

transfer order of the petitioner is still operative, the respondent authorities

shall relieve the petitioner towards implementation of the transfer order.

5. It is also made clear that if any administrative exigency impede the

petitioners' relieving, the petitioner shall be informed in writing. It will also

remain open for the respondents to reconsider the issue of transfer on

account of any administrative exigency.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder