@ [D 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITIOHNo; /2 53 K, OF 2006 @WmE PETITIONER Durga Prasad Sahu, aged about 39 years, S/o Shri B.P. Sahu, Pump Operator Grade-I Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limitation, R/o Village Deorani, Post .Maldi Tahsil Bhatapara Distt. Raippur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through My the Secretary Department of Commerce and *Industries, Mantralaya, D . K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgah State Industrial . Development Corporation Limited, Through the General Manager B/4, M.R. Colony, Shailendra Nagar,\Raipur (C.G.) / wew- L (l. Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. w. $1., Ran/‘1 “It?!” Gwalla‘rcvwr? 3. State ‘of Madhya Pradesh, w” Through the Secretary Department of Commerce and / Industry Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 4. Industrial Infrastructure 5. Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Through the Generafl Manager “ A.v.N. Towers” 192,‘ zene—i M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) WRIT PETITION UNDER AR’I‘ICLE 226/227 OF THE \\ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE' OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. A W J ‘ L M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.29V31I2006 (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K.>Aqnihotri, J. Present: - Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. ‘ Shri Ayaz Naved, counsel for respondent No.2. Smt. Anju Ahuja, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Sameer Behar, counsel for respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 4th day of December, 2009) V With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as z‘Pump Operator Grade—l by the respondent No.4 and posted at Gwalior in the year 1992. The petitioner made a representation on 31-10— 2002 to the respondent No.2 for taking his service by the Chhattisgarh State industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “CSIDC") on transfer or allocation. The respondent No.2 by letter dated 31—10-2002 informed the respondent No.4 that CSIDC was willing to take service of the petitioner on allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh. The respondent No.4 sent a communication to the respondent No.5 by letter dated 03—12-2003 (Annexure P/3) for grant of “No Objection Certificate” for transferring the service of the petitioner to CSIDC, Raipur. Government of Madhya Pradesh also approved and granted “No Objection Certificate". Service of the petitioner was transferred to CSIDC. Raipur as Pump Operator and he was posted at CSIDC, Raipur by relieving order dated 4 PETITIONER purga Prasad Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others 04—03-2003 (Annexure P/7).‘The petitioner joined the service on 10-03- 2003 (Annexure P/8) at CSIDC, Raipur. After sometime, the Respondent No.2 declined to accept service of the petitioner on the ground that Respondent No.2 had granted “No objection” only on condition that service of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. ln the present case, the petitioner was not allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, despite ‘no objection‘ granted by all the respondents. The petitioner has approached this Court earlier by filing Writ Petition No.3130/2003 and by order dated 13-01-2006; the respondent authorities were directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of its receipt in accordance with law. (3) passed any order allocating the services of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh except no objection certificate issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Gwalior-respondent No.4(MPSIDC) only in case, services of the petitioner is taken by r respondent No.2. Conditional a no objection as is evident from communication dated 03-10—2002 was granted by the respondent No. 2—CSIDC subject to the fact that the State of Chhattisgarh accepts the services of the petitioner on allocation, then CSIDC has no objection. No objection was issued by respondent No.4 through its communication to the Managing Director, MPSIDC, Bhopal that if the State of MP. allocates the services of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh, MPSIDC, Gwalior has no objection. ln fact, no order has been issued either by the State of Madhya Pradesh or by State of Chhattisgarh allocating the services of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh. (4) ln view of the foregoing, the stand of the CSIDC that there is no allocation at the State level, the CSIDC cannot take service of the petitioner On perusal of the papers, it is found that no competent authority has merits'acceptance. It cannot be fauited with, as it appears to be just and proper. Right from the beginning, the stand of the CSIDC was the same. Accordingly, the relief sought for to quash the orders dated 17—03—2006 (Annexure—P/1-A) and 05—06-2006 (Annexure—Pe1/B) cannot be held as vitiated or illegal. Since the lien of the petitioner with the MPSIDC, Gwalior has never come to an end, the petitioner may file proper application before the MPSIDC, Gwalior through concerned authorities, to take back him in ‘ service, if so advised. (5) Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that since the petitioner has been relieved from the office of the respondent No.4, he cannot be permitted to join again is without any basis. No order has been produced in which it has been stated that lien of the petitioner has come to an end. (6) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make proper application, if so advised, to the respondent No.4 forjoining service. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge rumane