x? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH‘ BILASPUR 5.3.: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 350612010 PETITIONER Chaitram Patil, S/o Shri Konda Ram Patil, aged about 58 years, Revenue Inspector posted I at Sub Divisional Officer (Rev), Raipur>(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) £ommissioner of Land Records, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Manoj Kumar Dube, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate, for the State. 3. ORAL ORDER (06.08.201 0) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA1J. Heard on admission. Petitioner- Chaitram Patii is working on the post of Revenue Inspector. He is presently posted in Collectorate, Raipur. By the impugned order dated 05.07.2010, he has been attached to the office of Land Records. Korba for a period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that by order dated,‘ 19.04.2010 (Annexure-P—i), the petitioner has been engaged in preparation of revised voter list, therefore, his attachment, which amounts to transfer, was not possible by the impugned order. He refers to the contents of transfer policy dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure-P-Q). A perusal of the impugned order dated 05.07.2010 would show that for specific purposes of measurement of land, its 'survey and for preparation of torn maps etc., as many as 40 persons of ditferent cadres have been directed to be attached to the office of Land Records, Korba and Bilaspur, lt is important to take note that the order dated 05.07.2010 (Anneuxre-P—7) also specmes the time of one year, for which, those persons are being sent to Bilaspur and Korba for the said work. This makes clear a case of attachment of some persons to a particular work for a particular ' eriod. l l l that it is not a case of transfer of the petitioner or the other persons, but it is a 2 g0 WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 350612010 ln the administrative exigency, when several employees of the Government are required to complete a partieular public work at a particular place and those number of posts are not available at that place, the Government has to take such steps to get the work done by attachment of that number of persons for a particular time frame. It is in this view of the matter, no malatides can be attributed on the part of the Government. Attachment is not a new entry in the realm of service law. lt is an incidence of service, the validity thereof can be examined on general principles. Unless the order of attachment is shown to be vitiated by malatides of extraneous considerations or violative of Rules or the Act, the same cannot be set-aside in general manner which may result to frustrate the public interest For the foregomg reasons l do not find any infirmity In the action of the Government by which as many as 40 persons Includlng the petitloner, have been attached to two different offices for a particular work. The action appears to be in administrative exigency. The petition is liable to'be dismissed and is hereby dismissed/ ,