Nk. i (U? (^3-C7 IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASFUR W.P. (Sl No. ^%^^f 72009 "^ ..^ .^H-y ^ -o ^%? '^>-"" ^- PETITIONER 1. ^Lav Dongre, S/o. Shri S.L. Dongre, aged about 25 years, Working as - Sub Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, (Office of Chief Executive Officer) Akaltara Block, District Janjgu- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS .r". RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh through : :^T>' ..^•:6^>" ...'•'" v>^^/ ^.^w ^-:^^' Secretary, Department of Panchayat and rural development D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Additional Secretary, Department of Panchayat and rural Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3) Chhattisgarh Rural Development Authority through: Chief Executive Officer, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4) Superintendent Engineer, ^- ^, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. Office of Vikas Ayukta, Raipur (C.G.) 5) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITOTION OF INDIA Jlli_ A/-^ INNiNNB^- HIGH COURT OF CliHATTISGARH Art' BILASPIJR WRn' PETITION (S) No. 7181 of2008 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS K.P. Choukse. VERSUS State ofChliattisgarh & Otliers. ^ONGWITH W.P.(S)No. 4994/2007,6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165/2008, 164/2009,306/2009, 352/2009,604/2009,670/2009,701/2009, 2418/2009, 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 and 4949/2009. WRIT PETI'nON UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shn Satish K. Agmliotri. J. Present: Shii R.K.Kesharwani, Shid Saiideep Dubey, Shri P.P.Sahu, Ms. Shai-mila Singhai with Slu-i Sanjay Agrawal, Shri M.V.Pai-anjpe, Ms. Morisha Chattri on behalfofShri Y.C.ShamLia^ Shri Chandresh Slirivastava, Advocates fortlie respective petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State. _v ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 09th day of December, 2009) The present batch of petitions viz. W.P.(S) No. 7181/200$, 4994/2007, 6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165/2008, 164/2009, 306/2009, 352/2009, 604/2009, 670/2009, 701/2009, 2418/2009, 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009 4455/2009 and 4949/2009 involve a coiimion question oflaw asto whether the petitioners, who are deputationists in the Paiichayat aild Rural Development Department and posted iii Rural Engineering Services, may be transfen-ed to Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Autliority and Pradhaii Mantri Grain Sadak Yojna, aiid as such, all these petitions are being disposed ofby a coniiiioii order. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were origiiially appointed iri the Water Resources Depariment and Irrigation Depailment on the post of Sub Engineer. The petitioners were sent on deputation to tlie Rural Engineering Services of Panchayat and Rural Development Department. '^- .Ajrui Therealler, flie petitioners coiitinued in the said depamiiem without •iliere being any absorption or repatriatioii to their respective parent departinent. 3. In the meaxitime, by the impu^ied orders dated 01.10.2008 [Armexiire P/l to W.P.(S) Nos. 7181/2008, 6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165,/2008, 164/2009, 306/2009, 352/2009, 604/2009, 670/2009, 701/2009 & 2418/2009], 17.7.2007 [Aimexiire P/4 to W.P.(S) No. 4994/2007] and 29.06.2009 [Ainexure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 & 4949/2009], tlie petitioners, without their consent, have been transfen'ed to Cliliattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority and Pradhan Mantri Graiii Sadak Yojana, which according to the petitioners^are not part of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Thus- the inipugned transfer orders are in question in tliis batch ofpetitions. 4. Slm Y.S.Thakui', leamed Deputy Govenmient Advocate appearing for flie State/respondents submits, on instmctions, that adiiiittedly, the petitioners were posted on deputation m the Rural Engineermg Services of the Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Now the State GovemiBent has decided to repatriate the petitioners to their rcspective parent departments. Shri Thakur iurtlier submits that till tlie fmal order of repatriation of the petitioners to their parent department is passed, the aforestated impugxied traiisfer orders shall not be given ei¥ectto. 5. At tliis juneture, leamed counsel appearing for the respective petitloners submit that in the light ofclear and categorical submission made by leanied Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, nothing survives in the preseiit writ petitions for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge