'^•^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition(8)No. 3^^/2010 (SB) PETITIONER / RESPONDENTS ^l.^.l.1^--- w^^':ss^--- dated......"^-^-^:^"^D M.D. Chandra, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Ujit Ram Chandra, posted as Sub Engineer, Resident of Block Colony, Janpad Panchayat Nagari, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS ^1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralay, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) <- 2. The Secretary Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - 3. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service Division, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, (Chhattisgarh) ^4. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 5. The Collector, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ^6. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Magarload, District - Dhamtari WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDJA HIGH CGURT GF CHHATTSSGARH : BiLASpuR Sinaie Bench: Hon'bie Shri rvlanjndra Mohan Shrivastava, J. WR5T PETiTiON (Si N0.38S8/i2010 PETSTiONER RE3PONDENTS Fvl.D. Chancira Versus State of Chhattisgarh &. others WRJT PETST5GN UNDER ARTSCLE 22©OF THE GGNS6TyTiON_QE-[NDjA Present:a Shri Sandeep Dubey, counsel for the petltloner. Ms. Smita Ghal, Panei Lawyer for the State. GRALGRpER (Passed on 23th Juiy, 2010) By this petltion, petitioner has challenged the iegality and validity of order dated 23/07/2010 (Annexure P/1). By the aforesald order the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Magarioad, in compiiance of letter dated 1S/04/2010 of the Cornmissioner, Raipur Divislon, letter dated 30/04/2010 of the Coilector, District DharTitari and ietter dated 3/5/2010 of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Dhamtan, has reileved the petitloner to join in his parent department i.e. VVater Resources Department. 2. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that the order of repatriation is iiiegal as the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Magarload is not competent to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department< Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner though had proceeded to join in the office of the Executive Engineer, his joining has been refused on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Magarload is not competent to issue order of repatriauon. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submjtteu, with reference to decision taken by the State Government in its note-sheet (Annexure -^, ••^.S^. 1 ^^.—^ :&^" ^ "^y P/6), that the Government has already proposed to repatnate the petjtioner working on ueputation in Rurai Engineering Sen/ice under Panchayat and Rurai Deveiopment. it is aiso subnriitted that In fhe matter of repatnation, pick and choose method is being adopted Jnasmuch as vide order dated 14/15.07.2010 (Annexure P/7), Engineers of Water Resources Departrnent piaced at Serial No.39, 85, 89 and 89 continuing on deputation, have not been repatriated but posted at different piace in the borrowing department i.e. Panchayat and Rural Developrnent. Leamed counsel for the petitioner also subrnltied that eariier when severaj Sub-Engineers of VVater Resources Department were being sent on deputauon to Rurai Engineering Service Department, Engineers of Ruraj Enylneering Service Department chaiiengeu8 such action of deputation and in W.P.No.2928/06 and bateh of petltions, order a'ated 14/07/2006 was passed. Respondents made staternents that department is not goiog to appoint any officer by way of ueputation/appointmenVtransfer on any post in Rurai Engineering Seivice Departrnent. 3. On petitioners own showing, the Governrnent has taken a decisiora to repatriate the engineers of Water Resources Department to the parent departrnent from the Departrnent Panchayat and Rural Deveiopment (Rurai Engineering Service). Frorn order dated 30/04/2010 (Annexure P/4) and 3/5/2010 (Annexure P/3), it Js reveaied that the engineers are belng repatriated to their parent departrnent in view of order dated 14/07/2006, passed by the High Court eariier. This position has not been disputed by iearned counsel for the petitioner. it is also found that the department has aiso taken a decision as refiected frorn Annexure F76 to repatriate the petitjoner frorn the Rural Engineering Service Department. From the averments made In the petltion, 11 is g^ft j found that when order dated 23/07/2010 (Annexure P/1) was passed, petitioner did not chaiienge it but proceedeu' to join and it was oniy when, he was not aiio-wed to join by the Executive Engineer of Water Resources Departrnent, Division Dhamtari, this petition has been ftied. 4. During his subrnissions, iearned counsei for the petltioner subrnitted that once the petitioner has been sent back to his parent department, he is entltled to proper piace of posting and he cannot be left to stand on street. Learned counsei for the State aiso submitted that upon return to the parent departrnent, the petitioner is entitjed to appropriate posting. It is however, subrnitted that the petitioner shouid report to respondent No.2. 5. Taking into consideration totalifry of the cSrcumstances and grievance of the petitioner and taking into consideration that the petitioner initialiy proceeded to compiy with the order and sought to submit his joining before the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division Dhamtan, it wouid be proper to direct that the petitioner shail be ajlowed to join in his office and continue, 1111 the State Government issues an appropriate posting order in favour of the petitioner in his parent department. As the petitioner has been rejieved by respondent No.6, Sn view of various orders passed by the Commissioner, Raipur divlsion, Coiiector, Dhamtari and the Executive Engineer, Rurai Engineering Serv'ice, Dhamtari, petitioner wouid be entitied to his salaiy without any interruption. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the petitlon is flnaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge