WRé’i‘ PEWfWN ($3 No.‘3§9i2i§i§3 §3ET3TWNE§§ Ram Sunder Yadav, SIO’ Late Jagd€sh Pi’asad Yadav, a§e abaut 55 years; Wcrkmg as Sub- Engmes: Janyau rwa «J Q,anciawv h ’r Kusmi. $ub Diva'smn Kusmt maria? ‘surguia (8.6.) VarSas i9 RE$?GN§EN?S 1 Staie ofChhatiisgar‘n, Thrsugh the Add§t§anal Secretaw, Uepartmen! 0f Panchayat & Rum Devesapmem, Mamramya, D’Kél Binawan, Raipm (CWG‘) Stai'e d Chhatt§$garh ”fhreugh ma Seca’etary, Department @f ‘J‘Jaier’Resaume’s; Mantraiaya, EKS. ahawan, Ra§pur (0G) 3 The Chief Executive Chham$garh Rum: Rcas Savebvmeni Amher§iy Vakash Bhawan, Raipur §C.G.) 4 The Chief Engmeer, Pradhan Mantri (3mm $adak Yogana, twice of th$ DéveEopment Ccmmi$smner, Chkattisgarh, Ra§p.r 5 Chief Execu€ive Offieer; Jambad Paechayat, Kusm‘n, District $uru3a WW1“ 9E? MN UNEE§€ £§WECLE 2i6 GF TEE £QN$TET$TEQ§ m: ENEEA .yaggeamme : Mr. AK. ¥'adav. Caunsei for the peiltioner. Mr. Panke} Sahrivastava, Pane! Lawyer I i3: t“ke Statefrespsndems '1 to 4. Mr Jaypmkash EEhukia, Counee1 er respendem+ Nara. r" eRAL eReER Qtwimm SQML K§W§i§R SINHA, J. @ g WRIT PETITION (S) No.559/2009 6 Heard finally with the consent of the parties. The petitioner is a Sub-Engineer. He was inIImHy appointed in the Water Resources Department. By an eurlier order, the petitioner was sent ondeputation to the Rum Engineering Services of the Panchayat and Hura Development Department. The petitioner continued in the said department without there being any absorption or repatriation to his parent department. In the meanwhih‘i. by the impugned order dated 01.10.2008 (Annexure P/1). the petitioner, without his consent, has been transferred lo Project lmpiementation Unit No.10, Pradhan Mam/fl Gmmiu Sadak Yojna, Prem Nagar, District Sarguja, which according to the petitioner, is not a part of the Panchayat and l‘turat Deveiopment Department. This order is under chatlenglo in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tho after sending on deputation to a particular department, an employee can be repatriated to his parent department mid it any other order regarding his posting is to be passed. tht consent of the employee is always required. In the prmmn case, consent of the petitioner was not taken while painting the transfer order dated 01.10.2008 sending him to an othet department. This Court while hearing the writ petition passed an interim/orderon 30.01.2009 and directed that “the effect .‘smrt operation of the impugned order dated 01.10.?008 (Annexure P/1), So far as it relates to the petitioner huroin, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing". Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tho petitioner is still working at his old place on the strengtt‘t oi the interim order passed by this Court on 30.01.2000 l- o also submits that in tnany other identical matters, in whim, the employees were transferred by the said common order dated 01.10.2008., learned Deputy Advocate Genetal ’ WRIT PETITION (S) No.559/2009 appearing for the State had submitted that tilt the final nrc‘lel of repatriatioh of the petitioners to their parent departrrmnt is passed, the aforesaid impugned transfer order shall nut he given effect to. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, is taking similar stand I'le also does not diSpute the above factual position stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. In View of the above, the impugned order (lalcxl O1 10.2008, so far as it relates of the petitioner, is set aside The petition stands finally disposed of. shyna