$mmE %ENEH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. {SI No. Zqé OF 2011. V, ETITIONER Vij ay Kumar Dewangan, P (V. K. Dewangan), S/o. Shri Chhabi Lal Prasad Dewangan, aged about 57 years, Sub—Engineer, Water Resource Department, R/o. Irrigation Colony, Quarter No. G—5, Nagri, Tahsil Nagri, District - Dhamtari (C. G.) VERSUS ESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Water Resource Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. w Incharge Officer of Census, Work Nagri, District Dhamtari (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R /;> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR , WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 346 OF 2011 _ \njay Kumar Dewangan Petitioner Versus Respondent State of Chhathsgarh & Another (Wnt Petutlon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench Hon bie Shn Satish K Agmhotn J Present :'-e .Shn Somkant Verma, Advocate forthe petitioner. - Shri Y;S.‘Thakur, Dy.‘Advocate General for the‘State: _ ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 21 " day of January. 201 1) ¥ Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointedgEnumerator (Praganak) for conducting l the work or Census 2011 under provisions of sub section,” (4) of v ‘ Section 4 of the Census Act 1948 (37 of 1948). Thereafter, by order dated 06/08/2010i the petitioner was transferred from Mahanadi Jalasaya Project Dam, Sub Division No.5, Sa'kra, District Dhamtari (C.G.)’to office of the Executive Engineer, [Water Resources, Division Beejapur, District Dantewada (C.G.); The question asto whether an employee engaged ’in Census may be transferred before completion of Census work, came up into consideration in this Court in the matter of Chandn'ka Prasad Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh‘ alongwith other, connected matters. ,This Court having considered all the aspects held that, an employee engaged in the Census may not be disturbed-V prior to its ' completion. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by several employees was allowed. ‘ l W.P.(S) No.3444 of 2010 (dedded on 05/10/2010) 2 €\ 3. V. Learned counsel futther submits that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the above—stated «I Gases. Shri Thakur, iearned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State submits that there is no dispute with regard to the above-stated submission and as such, the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly. i 5. Having regard to the fact situation of the case, the order in respect of the petitioner is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner may u; continue in the same place till the work of Census is complete. _ 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok