o^\^7 ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fSlNO. f2'f7'/2011 PETITIONER ^..- \..-""\..'< ^ t- <??•" o.-^' -^^s> ^•^ry <v!y RESPONDENTS J— .aiA'sstf VERSUS 1. Gajratan Prasad Kosariya S/o Late Bali Ram Kosariya, Aged about 39 years, Presently workuig on the post of Patwari, Patwari Halka No.15, Revenue Circle Board, Rajpur, Tahsil Rajpur, Distt. Surguja-(C.G-) State of Chhattisgarh Through —The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt.Raipur- (C.G.) .2. Collector (Land Record) Siu-guja, Distt. Surguja-fC.G.) 3. Sub Divisional OfKcer (Revenue), Rajpur, TahsU - Rajpzir, Distt. Surguja-(C.G.) 4. Dharmendra Dubey working as Patwari, Patwari Halka No.15, Tahsil-Rajpur, Distt. Sut-guja- (C.G.} RS;ssai®?seBii 7 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA ^i .mOH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTTPETITIONCS) No. 27'5 of2011 PETmONER : GajratanPrasadKosariya. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Other». WRIT PEI1TION UNDER ART.1CLE 226 OFTHE CONSJ1TUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. "'•\ Present: ShriA.N.Pandey, Advocate for Ae petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, PaiieltawyerfcrtheState/respoadentNo.ltoS. ORDER(QRAU (Passed on 19*' day of Januaiy, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tot the petitioner was engaged in eensus work by order dated 15.04.2010 (Annexure P/4) as Supervisor under fhe provisions ofsub 8ection(4) ofSection 4 offlie Censns Act, 1948 (37 of 1948). Thereafter, by order dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner, working as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 15, has been (ratisfen'ed to Patwari Ha&a No. 7, Revenue Circle Rajpur, Tahsil Rajpur, Dislrict Surguja. 2. The question asto whether an employee engaged in census may be transferred before completion of census work, came up into consideration before this Cowt m Chandrika Prasad Sinhay. State qf Chhattisgarh , alongwith oAer connected matters. Tlus Court, haviitg considered aB the aspectsofthe mattpr held that an employee engaged in eensus may not be disturbed prior to its completion. Accordingly, Ifae writ petition filed byseveral employees was allowed. Shri Pandey suhnuts tfaat the issue involved herein is squarely oovered hy the decision rendered by fhis Court in flie above stated cases. 3. Shri Shridhar, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for flie State subniits fliat fllere is no dispute with tegard to the above stated sutunission andas such, fte writ petitionmay be disposed ofaGcordjngly. 4. Having regard to the facts situation of fli^case, the impugned order dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure P/l) iarespect ofthe petitioner, is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner may continue at the sanie place till fhe work ofcensus is complete. 5. Accorduigly, the writpetitimiis disposed of. No order asto costs. ' W.P.(S) No; 3444/2010, decided on 05.10.2)10 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge