##PAGE1##

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

1

2026:CGHC:15217 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2639 of 2021

Bala Ram Verma S/o Chagan Lal Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o 467, Ward No. 5, Indira Nagar, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department , Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya , New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department , Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya , New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

4 - The Chief Exeuctive Officer Jila Panchayat, District Rajnandgaon.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyya, Government Advocate

For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Alok Nigam, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

02/04/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

2

“10.1) quash/set aside the impugned order dated 9/4/2021 (Annexure P/3) issued by respondent No.4 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Secretary Gram Panchayat Totalbharri Janpad Panchayat Dongargarh Distt.

Rajnandgaon CG.

10.2) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also

kindly be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.04.2021, issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner, who is presently working as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Totalbharri, has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Kamkasur, Janpad Panchayat Manpur, District Rajnandgaon. He would further submit that impugned transfer order is punitive in nature and has been passed by way of punishment, which is impermissible under law. He would contend that respondent No. 4 is not an appointing authority of the petitioner. The respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned transfer order; thus, the impugned order may be

set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

5. Taking into consideration the fact that the impugned transfer order was passed in the year 2021 and no interim order has been granted in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of this petition, in the opinion of this Court, at this stage, nothing survives for adjudication.

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed

3

6. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the competent authority, who in turn, shall consider and decide

the same in accordance with law

Sd/-

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim