T ._J " y l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Sl No. ^>A3 /2009 PETITIONER ^ ^@ ^f^ y 1. Santosh Kumar, S/o. Shri Ferulal Bamleshwar, aged about 30 years, Working as - Sub Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, (Office of Chief Executive Officer) Dondilohara, District Durg (C.G.) VBRSUS j \ RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh through : //^^ Secretary, Department of Panchayat and rural development D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2f The Additional Secretary, Department of Panchayat and rural Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^^ 3) Chhattisgarh Riiral Developnient Authority through: Chief Executive Officer, Dondilohara, District Durg (C.G.) 4) ^ Superintendent Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Grain Sadak Yojna Office of Vikas Ayukta, Raipur (C.G.) 5) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dondilohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (^ AF^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 7181 of2008 PETITIONER RESPO^DENTS K.P. Choukse. VERSUS State ofChliattisgarh & Otliers. .ALONGWFTH 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 PETmON UNDERARTICLES2260FTHECONSTnTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri. J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Shn P-P.Saliu, Ms. Sharmila Singhai with Shi'i Sanjay Agrawal/Shri M.V.Paranjpe, Ms. Morisha Chattri on behalfofShri Y.C.Sharma, Shri Chandresh Slirivastava, Advocates for tlie respective petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 09th day of Deceniber, 2009) 1. The present batch of petitions viz. W.P.(S) No. 7181/2008, 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 comnion question of law asto whether the petitioners, who are deputationists in the Paiichayat and Rural Development Department and posted in Rural EngmeCTing Sen/ices, may be traiisferred to Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority and Pradhan Mantri Gi-am Sadak Yojna, and as such, all these petitions are being disposed ofby a coniiiion order. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners vvere originally appomted in the Water Resources Department and Irrigation Department on the post of Sub Engineer. The petitioners were sent on deputation to the Rural Engineering Services of Panchayat and Rural Development Department. \ \ Aimi Thereafter, tlie pet.itioners coiitinued in the said depamiiem witliout 'Uiere being any absorption or repatriation to their respective parent department. 3. In the meantmie, by the impugned orders dated 01.10.2008 [AmiexTire 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 [Aimexure P/4 to W.P.(S) No. 4994/2007] and 29.06.2009 [Aimexure P/'l to W.P.(S) No. 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 & 4949/2009], the petitioners, without tlieir consent, have been transfen'ed to Cliliattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, which according to the petitioners are not part ofthe Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Thus, the impugned transfer orders are in question in this batch ofpetitions. 4. Slm Y.S.Thakur, leamed Deputy Govenmient Advocate appearing for the Stafe/respondents submits, on instmctions, that adiiiittedly, tlie p^titioners were posted on deputation in the Rural Engineermg Services of the Panchayat & Rural Developmenl Departmeiit. Now the State Govemsiient has decided to repatriate the petitioners to their respective parent departments. Sliri Thakur furtlier submits that till the final order of repatriation of the petitionei-s to their parent department is passed, the aibrestated impugned transier orders shall not be given effect to. 5. At diis juncture, leamed counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submit that in the light ofclear and categorical submission made by leanied Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, nothing sun'ives in the present writ petitions for adjudication. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge