v .^^s^- ^.^f^ •"'" ^ ^^.&•••'" e^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P (S) N0. U^^> /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS , 1] 2] 3] 4] .5] Jagat Ram Naik, S/o. Charan Singh Naik, aged about 54 years, R/o. D.P. Colony, Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Engineer-in-Chief., Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kondagaon Division, Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) Manaram Netam^ Peon, office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA t\ HIGH COIJRT OF CHHA'mSGARH AT BITASPIJE WEJT PETITTON (8) No. 4295 of2010 PETITIONER :' Jagat.Ra.mNa.ik. BJ!,SPONDENT8 VRRSU8 State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ^7RTf PEIITiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'fHE CONS'nTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon?We Sii'ri Satisii K. Agniliotrl, J. . Present: Shri Manoj Para-njpe, Advocatefbrthepetitioner. Sliri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for fee Slale/respoiide-nl No. 1 lo 4. None for the respondent No, 5, despite ser^ice ofnotice, €)R»ER (Passed on 01st day ofNovember, 2011) 1, The respondent. N'o. 5 has chosen not to a.ppea.r m the matter a.s he declmed t.o accept the notice issiied by this Coiirt, 2. Chailenge in this petition is to the order dat.ed 02.08.2010 (Amiexnre P/l), whereby t.he order dated 15.07,2010 (Amiexure P/2) has been ca.neelled. -3. Lea-med eoyiisel appearmg for the petitioner siibmits fhat m compliance ofthe order dated 15.07.2010, the petitioner hasjoined the -new pla.ce ofpo^ting, llius, the sa.me ea-miot be caiieelied oriGe the order has been coinplied with, 4. The dispute isivolved m the iriSt.a.nt ca.se is m a very iia.rrow compa.s.s. The' issue is a.st.o when once the tra-iisfer order.dated 15.07«2010 (Amiexi^re P/2) has been given effect to aiid pursiia.nt thereto, the pet.itioner has vacated the Goveniment. accommodation and jomed the new pla.ee ofpost.mg on 28.07.2010, whether the sa.me caii be cancelied by the siibsequeiit 'brder date-d 02.08.2011 (Aimexiire^P/11 5. lt m well settled that traiisfer is a.n mciderice of service, Once an employee has been tra-nsferred and the sa.me has been given effect ^r' fc' ^-..--•"?? I, '^"-—-1 v.-^ INNN^ 7. 8. ^ to byjoimng the new place ofpost.mg, t.he employer ca-imot ca.neel or modifv the same^ .mst.ead a. fresh order may be passed. In the ca.se cn hand, the petitiorAer has not onlyjoisied the new place of post.mg, but ha.s. also vaeated the govemnient a.ceommodatioii allotted to him wliich is t.he most essential requirement of an employee. Thus, the subseqiient order dated 02.08.2010 (Ajmexiire P/l) ca.ncelimg the exeeirted tra-nsfer order is imjiist and improper. This pra-ctice is contra.ry t.o the well settled prmciples aiid fiirilier, wh@n the employer m at liberty to pass a. fresh orden why should a-n cxder be passed ca.neelling the earlier order which ha.s a.lready been complied with« In view ofthe above, tlie order dated 02X)8,2010 (Aimexiire P/l) m quashed, However, liberty 1s reserved t.o the State/respoiident No. 1 to 4 to pass a.ppropriate cxden if so advised, in adsiiimstrafive exigency a,nd public- iiiterest.. The writ. petition is allcwed to the a-bove extesit. No order ast.o costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ainit