BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION TS1 N0. '7(3 79/2009 !Ni1! F RFMCH 1 s^.^ ^,c- p §-„§l^i^n Petitioner RESPONDENTS 1. ^) <^^ .^ ^ /^ />h~\. /^' ^/^ .-•^0 *'' ^ ^KiM'€^. --•^''^' ^ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Shesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 34 years, son of Shri Lal Sai Sahu, occupation - Service — Accountant, Aanganbadi Training Centre Dharamjaigarh, Nagar Panchayat - Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Woman & Child Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Union of India, through the Ministry of Woman & Child Development, New Delhi. The Director / Commissioner, Deptt of Woman and Child Development, State of Chhattisgarh, Near Old Nurses Hostel, Mantralay Parishar, District Raipur (CG) General Secretary (Maha-Sachiv) Chhattisgarh State Council for Child Welfare, Baal Bhawan, Sapre Shala Parisar, Near Scout Guide Office, Budhapara, Raipur (C.G.) District Programme Officer, Department of Woman & Child Development, District Raigarh (CG) District Programme Officer, Department of Woman & Child Development, District Raipur (CG) The Commissioner, State Commission, Raipur (C.G.) Election Ramesh Nande, aged about 60 years, S/o Not known to the Petitioner, Accountant, Aangan Badi Training Centre - Mana Camp, Raipur (CG) w T W' i aa Ba WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA, HIGH GOURT OP CHHATTISGARH ^ BILASPUR Writ Petittoa (S) No. 7079 of2009 -I ) Pctitioner Shesh Kiunar Sahu Versus Respondents State ofChfaattisgaA& others (Writ Petitioa imder Article 226/227 ^Ftfae Constitutiott oflndia) (SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agtiihotri J.) Shri A. N. Bhakta, Advocate for (he petittoner. Shri N. N. Roy, F'ancl Lawyer for the respondents/State. Shri. KashtfShakeel, Advocate for fhe respondent No.2. SUri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.4 ORDBRIOtall ( Passed on this 8fh day afFcbruaiy, 2010) Heard. Learued counscl appearmg for the petitioner subinits that during tfae pendency of fhis petition, wluch challenges the traasfer onler dated 18.11.2009, fhe petitioiier has been terminated i&om semce. The petittoner has fiilcd anotfaer writ petiticm chaUengir^ fhe tennination order, which is pendiag consideratkin. Accordingly, this petition bas becoiue infiuctuous. Leamed counsel appeaaag for the respondents have no objection. ' '' In view offhe foregoit^, the writ petition is dismissed as havii^; becoiue infi'uctuous. No order as to costs. 3. ThakuT Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge