c r-'i -^ t >ilt "t'r^ ssner^® IN THE MON'BLE HIGM COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BTU\SPUR CC.G.1 WRrrpETmoN (S) No, e^ OF 2003 PETITIOJMER RESPONDENTS /<"> ^tt^ ^.i'y ?;'% v" ^-" ^ ^ ^^: /fty ^ .?' -e^ !^ /•€3 'w'^^s^' ^ ^tN"^'t ,^' ./;•&- ^ :". . ^ : . B.R. Sonwani, S/Q Shri Manrakhan Sonwani, a§ed about 44 years, Present Posted as Janpad Panchayat Keshkar, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Deyelopment DepaMrrnent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). ^ • :. : ' 1: • 2. TheAdditional Secretary, Panehayat and Rural Development Department, Raipur(C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Irrigation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.) . ^. • 6. Chhattisgarh Rural Road DevgloprnentAuthority, i : Thi-ough: the Chief Executive^Officei-, Chhattisgarh Rura] Royd Development Authbrity, Ciyil Liftes, Raipur (C.G.). . • ^;^ WRn" PETITLON UNDER_ARTICLE. 226_OF_TKE_CQNSn_TUT!QN_OF " ^"°.(%:-;;?;" ^ %i«^.". ;•:':) /t/-^ u HIGM COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A'l' BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7181 of 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 K.P. Choukse. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Otliers. ALONGWITH 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 PETITION LTNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri. J. Prcscnt: Shx'i R.K.Kesharwaiii, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Slm P.P.Sahu, Ms. Sharmila Singhai with Sliri Sanjay Agrawal, Shri M.V.Paraiijpe, Ms. Morisha Chattri onbehalfofShri Y.C.Sharma, Shri Chandresh Sluivastava, Advocates for tiie respective petitioiiers. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy GovemmentAdvocate for tlw State. ORDER(QRAL) (Passed oft 09ttl day of December, 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 aiid 4949/2009 involve a conunon question oflaw asto whether the petitioners, who are deputationists in the Panehayat and Rural Development Departinent and posted in Rural Engineering Ser^ices; may be transfen'ed to Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Autliority aiid Pradliaii Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, and as such, all these petitions are being disposed ofby a conimon order. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were originally appointed in the Water Resources Department and Irrigation Department 011 tfie post of Sub Engineer. The petitioners were sent on deputation to Uie Rural Engineering Services of Panchayat and Rural Development Department. V/ Aimt Thereafter, the petitionsrs coniinued in the said department witliout ihere - being any absorption or repatriation to their respective parent department. 3. In the meantime, by the impu^ied orders dated 01.10.2008 [Annex-ure P/1 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 [^mexure 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 CUiattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, which according to the petitionersare not part of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Thus, the impugned transfer orders are in question in this batch ofpetitions. 4. Sliri Y.S.Thakm', leamed Deputy Goveniment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits, on instructions, that adiTdttedly, the petitioners vvere posted on deputation iii the Rural Engineering Services of the Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Now the State Govermnent has decided to repatriate tlie petitioners to their respective parent departments. Sl-u-i Thakur liullier submits that till the fmal order of repatriation of the petitioners to their parent department is passed, the afbrestated impugned traiisfer orders shall not be given effect to. 5. At this 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 surv'ives in the present writ petitions for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge