C‘%h‘5’{)/ @ $§§§§§§E EEKE IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( s ) No. 7 W 0f 2009 PETITIONER: Chhattisgarh Tritiya Varg Shaskiya Karamchari Sangh, through its Block President Roshan Kumar Patnaik S/o Shri Krishn Chand Patnaik, aged about 47 years, Tamnar Block District Raigarh , posted at Primary School Mahaloi, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG). Versus / RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, /' Raipur (CG). 2. The Secretary, Tribal Department (SC/ST) Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, 3. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur (CG). /Raipur (CG). 4.[ The Commissioner, Tribal Department, Raipur (CG). 5. The District Education Officer, f,wRaigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 6. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raigarh l x” (CG). 7. The Block Education Officer, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Patition (S! No. 7449 of 2009 Petitioner Chhattisgarh Tritiya Varg Shaskiya Karamchan' Sangh Respondents The State bf Chhattisgarh and others (Writ Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agm'hotxi J’) Versus Shn' Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for the petitioner. 7 Shn' Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shn’ N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State] respondents. O R D E EOIaI) Passed on this 17th day of December, 2009 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the parent department of the members of the petitioner-Union is School Education Department and they were sent on deputation in Tribal Welfare Department by order dated 15.3.2000 (Annexure P/ 4). Now the members Vof the petitioner-Union want to go back to their parent department, therefore the concerned authon'ties may be directed to pass appropriate order. 2. It is not clear asto Whether the members of the petitioner—Union have made individual applications or not. It appears, on perusal of the papers, that the petitioner-Urnon has made an application which may not sufnce to fulfill the requirements, because the service Conditions of an individual employee is governed by rules, regulations, individually, not through union, particularly in government services. 3. In View of the above, it is directed that if the applications are made by individual members to consider their cases for repatriation to the parent department, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate order shall be passed Within a period of six weeks nom the date of receipt of the applications. 4. In View of the foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. mmr 4 vx Thakur. Satish K. Sd/- Agnihotri i 3 Judge i 7