(Ab1gD//_ @ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. Z! H 12011 PETITIONER /" K.s.Tanwar S/o Shri Lakhan Ial Tanwar aged abt 49 yrs.R/o behind Pauwal hospital, chandaniyapara,Janjgir,Distt-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ' VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh through: Secretary Panchayat and _ Rural Devélopment Department D.K.S.Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineerin Chief Water resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / 3. Executive Engineer Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yogfna Project implementation unit no.2 Dharam Jaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS l ORDER / DIRECTIONS 1. PAR [ICULARS OF THE PETITIONR E As mentioned in the cause title above El £7 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title above T HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 21 11 of 2011 PETI’I'IONER : K.S.Tanwar. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS WRFI PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Uttam Pandey.‘ Advocate for the petitioner. ‘ Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL “ (Passed on 05 day of May, 201 l) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was rendering his services in the Water Resources Depaitment as Sub Engineer. The petitioner was sent on deputation in the month of March, 2006 to the Pradhan Mantri Grain Sadak Yojna under the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.12.2010 (Annexure P/l ), the petitioner has been directed to join his parent department i.e. with the respondent No. 2. Since the petitioner was not relieved for a long time to join his parent department, he moved an application on 16.03.2011 but no action has been taken by the respondent No. 3 to relive the petitioner. 2. Shri Pandey further submits that once the order of transfer has been passed to repatriate the petitioner in his parent department, it . ‘, . is for the government to ensure. that it is complied with immediately. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sreeclam Chandra Ghosh v. State ofAssam & othersl, in support of l (.1995) 10‘ SCC 567 2 his contention that ifthe order is not complied with, a direction can be issued for enforcement thereof: V1 On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that there may be some administrative exigency on account of which: the petitioner may not have been relieved. Howeveu he thither submits that if the order dated 03. 122010 (Annemre P/l) is still in existence and has xnot been complied with, appropriate steps would be taken to comply with the order.’ ‘Ifthe aforesaid order is still in existence and there is no other order contrary to the order dated 03.12.2010 (Annexure 13/1), the govemment is under an obligation to comply with the same at once. It is accordingly directed that the order dated 03.12.2010 (Annexure P/l) shall be complied with forthwith, within a period oftwo weeks. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Wit WWww ,w Judge ,,,,,, ,