$L\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 5m: Petitigg 1S) Ng. g144 of zqqs Ram Naresh Tandon, aged about 42 years, son of late Shri Sukram, réSident of Avanpur, Tehsil Avanpur, Dishict Rajpur, Chhattisgarh. ?ETETION'E§ : VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through ths Secretaiy, Department of R€Venue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Upper Secretaly, Department of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipm‘ (C.G.). 3. The Collector (Land Record), Raipur, Chhattisgal‘h. 4. The Tehsildar, Abhanpur, DisttV Raipur (CG) 5 Rajesh Sharma, Patwari, working at Patwari Halka No. 130] 20, Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) RE$PONDENTS Shri Amit Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Parlel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 4. Shn‘ Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 1'7“! day of June, 2009) l. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 25.6.2007 (Annexure P] 1) and further seeks for‘ a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pass appropriate order maintaining his seniority as Well as to compiy with the rules of Chhattisgarh Land Record Rules. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner, by order dated 25.6.2007, while working as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. O4 Pahanda, Bhilai — 3, Patan, Durg, was transferred to Patwari Halka No. 130/20 Gatapar, Abhanpur, district Raipur on administrative ground. Without amending or modifying the earlier order dated 25.6.2007, the subsequent order was passed on 29.6.2007 (Annexure P/ 2), transferring the respondent No.5 (Shri Rajesh CO 49 / Shanna), Patwari, from Patwari Halka No. 118, Raipur to Patwan' Halka No. 130/20, Abhanpur, District Raipur i.e. the same place Where tha pefj1ion€r was earlier transferred by order dated 25.6.2007. . The petitioner impugns the order dated 25.6.2007 (Annexure P/ 1) on the ground that he could not have joined the place of posting » after he was relieved on 23.7.2007, as before his relieving and joining, just Within four days, the respondent No.5 was transferred by order dated 29.6.2007 (Annexure P/ 2). Shii Amit Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the peu'tioner submits that the confusion has been created by the State authorities by passing the subsequent transfer order dated 29.6.2007, admittedly, before relieving the petitioner on 23.7.2007. On 23.7.2007 there was no post vacant at Patwari Halka No. 130120, Abhanpur. Thus, there was no question ofjoining of the petitioner at Abhanpur. The petitioner could not join at Patwari Halka No. 130/20, Abhanpur and the petitioner was also' not assigned the work at Patwari Halka No. O4 Pahanda, Bhjlai ~ 3, Patan, Durg. Thus, this petition was filed for quashing of the order dated 25.6.2007 and further for grant of salary and other benefits. . Shn' Arvind Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. t to 4/ State would submit that the petitioner was not paid salary, as the petitioner had failed to join the place of posting at Patwari Halka No. 130/20, Abhanpur. The petitioner submitted his joining on 3.3.2008 after a period of about 9 months. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled for any pament of salary on the principle of ‘no Work, no pay’. The petitioner further not submitted any medical certificate in support of his ground that he was not .\ i3 \ ‘t i K \ g9 medically fit or ili so that 116 could not join the place of posting. The State Government, subsequently on 18.7.2008 (Annexure Rf2), placed the petitioner in the ofhce of the Sub Divisional Otiicer, Baloda Bazar, stating that there was no vacancy in Patwari Halka No. O4 Palaanda, Bhilai — 3, Patan, Durg, therefore he is being posted at Baloda Bazar. . Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, leained counsel appean’ng for the respondent No.5 supports the contention advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respondents] State and further submits that the respondent No.5 has joined at Patwari Halka No. 130/ 20, Abhanpur in the month of October, 2007, as the petitioner never joined at that place, . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties I have perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. lt is evident that the entire confusion has been created by the State authorities. On perusal, it appears, that once the order is passed on 25.6.2007, there was no occasion to pass subsequent ord'er dated 29.6.2007, placing the respondent No.5 at the same place Where the petitioner was already transferred by the order dated 25.6.2007. In the order dated 29.6.2007 there was no mention about the transfer of the petitioner from Patwari I-lalka No. 130/20, Abhanpur to any other place. As a result, two persons were posted by order dated 25.6.2007 and 29.6.2007 at Patwari Halka No. 130/ 20, Abhanpur. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 that since the respondent No.5 has joined in October, the petitioner ought to have joined at Abhanpur, prior to joining of the respondent No.5, is baseless. As once the order dated 29.6.2007 was passed, there was no occasion §”\ for the petitioner to join at Patwali Halka No. 130 20. Joining at / Patwari Halka No. 130/ 20 Abhanpur, oven after relieving, was not possible for e petitioner, as admittedly, after October, the th respondent No.5 was working at Patii Halka No. 130i 20. At the most the petitioner could have joined at Patwari Halka No. O4 Pahanda, Bhilai - 3, Patan, Durg. lt appears that the petitioner had not attempted to work at Patwari Halka No. O4 Pahanda, Bhilai — 3, Patan, Burg. Thus, the order dated 25.6.2007 could not have been complied with by the petitioner in the teeth of the subsequent order dated 29.6.2007, when admittely, the petitioner d was not relieved before July, 2007. 8. On 17.6.2008 this Court after hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as lealned counsel appearing for the State/respondents observed that “the State respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate order assigning wrk to the petitioner, if so advised.” The State has failed to rectify the mistake of passing, two orders and creating confusion. Again on 10.7.2008 when the State/respondents had failed to rectify the mistake, an order, directing the Staterespondents was paSsed to ake payment of / m salary to the petitioner from July, 2007 within a period of two d Weeks. No steps have been taken to comply with the above orers. However, an application (I.A.No.3 dated 21.7.2008) was tiled for recalling the order dated 10.7.2008. The State/respondents has not taken any steps, as per the practice prevalent in this Court, to press the application (I.A.No.3) for consideration. It appears that there was a deliberate attem, not to comply with the order .\\ passed by this Court and keeping the application pending. It is \\ ‘\ well settled that when an order is passed, which is neither ’ \t wa o pt \\ t ;% amended nor modifiad, mam iig ofapplication will not alrést tha complianca of the or6r. On perusal i appears that the petitioner could not be faulted with for not joining at Patwari Haika No. 130120, Abhanpur, hen e Staelrespondents has created confusion by passing two orders by directing the petitioner asmweii as the respondent No.5 to join at one paiticular iace of posting. 9. Te officer concerned who has passed two contrmy orders on 25.6.2007 and 29.6.2007 has not created only confusion but has caused ioss to the public exchequer. It is for the State Government to take appropriate action against the ening ofiicer, if so advised. 10. For the reason stated herein above the petition is alloed. It is ordered that :- (i) eThe order dated 25.6.20 (Annexure P/ 1) is quashed in respect of the titioner. pe (ii) The respondents No. 1 to 4/ State are directed to immediately calculate the salary of the petitioner, which is due and payablet Within a period of three weeks and make payment Wh one week thereafter. No order as to costs. A copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh. Sd/- Satish K.‘Agnilio‘tri Judge Thakur lm d t W th t p h s w 07 itin ;