c^ 1<crz5 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P (S) No. ^^"2^? /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS A^5^ ^•^y^^ ^y f'^s'~ ^ .•••"' ^^•^^- ^-•:"^fx->^~ ^"".' V..-"''' y ^\..'-- o^ -^s"?^ !»,'W^^ li .-. Kf'a^s-'!-! i ^ -SN / Lobhan Sai Sarthi, S/o. Shri Dukalu Ram Sarthi, aged about 34 years, Rural Agricultural Extension Officer, Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.), R/o. Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS :1 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Department of Agriculture, Directorate, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Upper Sanchalak, Agriculture, Directorate of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh at Raipur (C.G.) 4. Joint Director of Agriculture, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Deputy Director of Agriculture, near Collectorate, Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Sub-Divisional Officer (Agriculture), Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 7. Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) ^v WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. •Sl. % i; SSB^% 1 "<-' MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3728 OF 2011 Lobhan Sai Sarthi Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others J?- (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 13th day ofJuly, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 15-7-2010, which was the subject matter of the writ petition being W.P. (S) No.804 of 2011 {Lobhan Sai Sarthi v. The State of Chhattisgarfi & Others) was quashed. 3. The impugned orders dated 6-6-2011 (Annexure - P/1) and 5-7-2011 (Annexure - P/2) have been passed in compliance ofthe order dated 15-7-2010, which has already quashed by this Court on 10-2-2011 in W.P. (S) No.804 of 2011. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the respondent authorities may be permitted to pass fresh order without insisting compliance ofthe orders dated 6-6-2011 & 5-7-2011. 5. There is no question of non-insistence of compliance of the orders dated 6-6-2011 & 5-7-2011. The said orders smack of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court earlier on 10-2-2011. 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 6-6-2011 & 5-7-2011 are quashed. The State authorities are always at liberty to post an employee in public interest and administrative exigency. 7. _ In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Gowri SatishK-Ag) Judge