^ ] HIGH COURT OF CHHAnlSGAKB. BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLEMR; JUSTIC&SUNIL KUMAR SINHA ^' WritPetitionfStNo. 6914 6f2008 A.A. Siddique Vs. Stateofehhattisgarh&Ofhers ORDER Post fbr Order: 30/11/2010 Sd/- SuniiKumar Sinha Judge !r :,ir 1 HIGH GOURT OB- CHHAT'IISCtARH. fiIUUSgOR S.B.: HO BI^MR.JUSTMC®SUNltKU]VlA^^a^ RESPQNDENTS WritPetitionlSlNo. 69l4.bf 2008 PETITIONER A.A. SiddiqUe, S/o Shn Iqubal Ahinad^' Aged^^^^^^a^ Janpad Panchayat, Pathriya, BilaspUF, TahsilaitdJDtstriCt-BilaSpur ...(C.G.):::::,.',^ .:,^ •Versus^'' • "' ,, -:;: • 1 State of ChUattisgarh, Through: Secl^ary, Panehayat , and .Rilral Devek^imeiU . Departa^ Bhawan, Mahtralay, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Chhattisgarhjiui-al RoadDevelopment ^^^^^^^ A^ Qfficer, CiyitLules Raipur (C.O.) '';3;::::..,SiipenntendenGes^iEnguieeT^.^Pra^ Mantn 'gri-ain.^Sad^" Yojna^^^^Q VikasAyukta, Raipur(C.G.)^^ ^ 4 Projecf ImplementaticuiUnit.Through; B&eutive Engineer, Pradhaii Mantri, Grainin Sadak Yojna, RaigarU, Distnct .Raigarh:(C.G.)':'^;.,',;: :;;' :• '.-••,.::::;:'::::". WRIT^l>ETni©N<lIiroERARTieiA226^0FTHECON^^ INDIA •;.':.:••',:."-:'. ... ' ': Appearance:, ; • • •••:.•'.;':••:.;.:-' • ':: j \: . ':, ,. . Mr. Sandeep^DubQr, AdvpGate ior the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Mishra, Panel Em^E&Fthe State/TespBnidents. 'ORDER'..' ':1':.. ; • ;" ; :; •':: :•" '•; (3P.11.2010) SUNIL KUMAR ^NHA. J. (1) Petitioner- A.A.'Siddique is wbrkirig pn the post of SuB-^^ in Janpad Panchayat, E^thai^, TahsU-^^istnctBilaspu^ petitkaier was mitiaUy appointGddn the pest 9f Sub-Engirieer (Givil) on 28.12.79 mWaterResoureesDepaitment(WRD).^erea^ dated-24.9.96, the petitipner was sent on (leputation tb Pa-nichayat and .i^. Nli .^:iii^"'lfr^:ii. M(/t'V .X ,•?^' WritPetition(S)No.69l4dt2008 '; ^ Rural Development Departinent. By the impugried order dated 1.10.2008 (A.nnexure-P/l),the petitioner has been sent from Janpad Panchayat, Pathariya, District Bilaspur to Project Iinplementation Unit No.l, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY), Raigarh, District Raigarh. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order on the grouhd that PMGSY is diiferent identity and is no the concem of RES Departinent where the petitioner was sent dn deputation, therefore, attachment of the petitioner to PMGSY from RES amounts to further deputation which could not have been done without obtaining consent from the parent department as also frpm the petitioner, fherefore, the impughed order of transfer/attachment dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure- P/1) is bad-in-law. ./- . : . . • • • . ... (2) The respotidents have filed their return. They have admitted that the pefitiorier was an employee of Water Resources Department and he was sent on deputation to RES Department. Their contention is that by fhe unpugned order his services have beiBn simply attached with the Implemenfation Unit of PMGSY, Raigarh, therefore np consent was required frora the petitioner as tKe PMGSY is a Central Scheme and State Govemment is only Implemeritatioh Agency of the said scheme through Rural Engineering Senrices Departtnent. They have furfher contended fhai the order dated 1.10.2008 was a transfer order ahd was issued in adniinistrative exigenGies iii radonalization. (3) A rejoinder has also been filed by fhe petitioner saying that in an identieal petition Bled by the co-employees pf fhe petitioner who were also trgnsfen-edbytheimpt;ignedorder(W.P.(S) No. 7165^2008—M.D. I. ; : ' • . 1-. ! .: Chandra 8s another -Vs- State of Chhattisgal-h SE others),|respondents 'l • ;-^ ^ . have filed their retum and have adinitted that the said inGident of .?:;."€ !1 ^aasi, 1 ^. ''lasrf^'.t"' \5& "%,s. WritPetition rS^Nu. 6914 of2008 attachtnent done by the unpugned order dated 1. 10.2008 was in fact a deemed deputation in vacancies existing in the various posts of Unit of PMGSY. The copy ofthe retum ffled in W.P.(S) No. 7165/2008 hasbeen iiled as Annexure-P/12. (4) This Court while entertaining the vyrit petition--on 12.12.2008 issued notices to the respondents and passed an interim order that in the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the impughed order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure-P/l),so far as it relates to fhe pedtioner, shall remain stayed tiU the next date of hearing. This interim order was later oncontinued and byorderdated 11.8.2010 the application for vacating stay filed by therespondents was also dismissed. It is stated at bar that as an effect of the interim order granted 12.12.2008 the petitioner is stiUcontinuing at his preserit place ofposting. (5) Be that as it may, cohsidering the facts and circuinstances of the ease pardculary the eircumstance that it was a matter of attachment and the petitioner was granted stay on 12.12.2008 and he is still continuing on the saine post and the inipugned order could not be given effect to, and a long time has elapsed after passirig of the impugned order, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this matter simply by setting aside the impugned order without expressing any opinion on the conti-oversy inter-se raised by the parties. (6) Accordingly, the writpetition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 1.10.2008, so far as it relafes to the petitioner, is set-aside. (7) Nocost. Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha