Sanjay Dubey, /o Sri Satanand Dubey, Food inspector, Aed about 47 years, and Civil Splies Dharsiwa, Raipur, R/o Kancn Ganga lony, Phase-I, Harshandra Mar, aipr ihc gi Ru, District Raipur (C. .G) Versus tate of Chhattisgarh — through he Setary, Food Civil Suppiies Deprtment, '.K.S a D. Bhavan, Ripur (C.G.) The Disrict-cum—Spc cretary, Secretary, Food & Civil Suplies epartmen, Ste of Cattisgarh, Distric- aipur (C.G.) Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Mr. P.R. Patanar, Advocate forthe petioner. k ti Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/resondents. p ORAL ORDER (04.08.201 0) Heard finlly with h consent of learned counsel for the parti. Petitioner—Sanj ubey is rking n the post of Fodd Inspector. B h 19 Ann he dr SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. a te es ay D wo o y te impugned order dated .6.2008 (exure-P/Q), was transferrefom Block Dharsiwan to Block Gariyaband on administrative grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per circular dated 19.8.94 (Annexure-P/12), the office bearers of the Union are not be transferred for a period of two terms i.e. six years. He submits that the petitioner was elected for the first time in 2004 as Secretary, Chhattisgarh Karmachari Sangh, therefore, the petitioner could not have been transferred till the year 2010. The aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is opposed by learned counsel for the State. On 30.6.2008, this Court while entertaining the writ petition passed the interim order that the status quo, with regard to the placement of the petitioner, as obtained on the said date shall be maintained till the next date of hearing. . \ HIGH COURT OF THE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (S) No. 3295 of 2008 S h g Food up, n ha Co Petitioner Respondents S t ecr & a 2 teiai Se p Dt ta hh t R y \ k q ,«11;\V;§0 T‘n-Wxm—vuxwm‘anw 2 W.P.(S) No. 3295 of2008 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a consequence of the aforesaid order, the petitioner is stiH continuing at Dharsiwan. Since a long time has elapsed after passing of the order of transfer of the petitioner on 19.6.2008 and the petitioner has also continued at the same place as a consequence of interim order dated 30.6.2008, l do not find any justification in deciding the controversy raised by the patties at this stage. However, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, l feel it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with direction that the respondents .shall not insist upon the petitioner to comply the impugned order dated 19.6.2008 and the impugned order, so far as it relates to the petitioner, shall With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands finally disposed of. Consequently, interim order granted on 30.6.2008 also stands vacated. not be given effect to. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge