^.^^^\ r-.^- l s IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^ 5^^- OF 2011. PETITIONER ^ ^ 'l^ >':..^:^v.^:" .^s^') ^•^'.y- ^yy RESPONDENTS R. S. Ganjir, S/o. late Shri K. R. Ganjir, aged about 48 years, Sub Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub Division Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.). VERSUS ^i. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. The Collector, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 3. Incharge Offlcer of Census, Work, Tahsildar Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA gr^i'" [\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 6957 of2011 PETmONER RESPONDENTS R.S.Ganjir. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, AdvoGate for the petitioner Shri Amn Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents ORDER (Passed on 24th day ofNovember, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tfaat the petitioner, woricing as Sub Engineer in Public Works Department at Sub Division Kanker, District Kanker, has been transferred to Byapur Division; on administrative grounds, vide order dated 16.11.2011 (Amiexure P/l). Shri Verma furtfaer submits that the petitioner had already been engaged as Supervisor in economic and caste census 2011 vide order dated 10.10.2011 (Annexure P/2). Shri Verma next submits that the engagement ofthe petitioner in census work has further been extended vide order dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P/3). 2. The question asto whether an employee engaged in Census may be transferred before completion of Census work, came mto consideration before this Court in CAa^rjfe? Prasad Sinha v. ^T State ofChhattisgarh and other comiected matters. This Court, having considered all fhe aspects of the matter, held that an employee engaged in the Census may not be disturbed prior to its completion. Accordingly, fhe writ petition filed by several employees was allowed. Shri Verma submits fhat fhe issue involved herein is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the aforestated case. 3. Shri Sao, leamed Govemmerrt Advoeate appearing fbr tfae State/ respondente submits fhat there is no dispute with regard to the above stated submission and as such, the writ petition may be disposed ofaccordingly. 4. Having regard to fhe fact sitiiation of the case. tfae iiaapugned order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure P/l) m respect of the petitioner is quashed and it is directed that tfae petitioner may continue at tihe same place till the work ofCensus is complete. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ainit