/^( IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl N0.75~^70F 2010 PETITiONER 'Keshav Prasad Lahre S/o Ratiram Lahre, aged about- 36 years, presently working as Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub Division-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Department of Public Works, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. ^\ ^a.-** -•• ^y ^^y '•yy Divisional Office Public Works Department, Champa, thrpugh - its Executive Engineer, Divisional Office, Champa, Disfrict : Janjgu-- Champa (C.G.). ,^" ^' ^ 1] 3/ Divisional Office, Public Works Department, Sararigarh, 'nirQugh its Executive Engineer, Sarailgarh District Raigarh (C.G.). 'r. Amit Kashyap, PreSently working as Assistant Engineer, Eublic Works Department, Sub Divisioh- Sarangarh, Distriet Raigarh (GG.) 5." Sub Divisional Office, Public Works Department, Champa, through— its Sub Divisional Officer, Champa, District: Janjgir- ChampafC.G.). 6. ^ub Divisional Qffice, Public Works Department, Sarangarh, through - its Sub Divisional Officer, Sarangarh, District: Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETrTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITtJTlON OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As given above in the cause title. COURT OFCHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETiTiON (SV N0. 7S47 OF 2( 'Keshav Prasad Lahre Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRiT PETiTSON UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITOTiON OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Satyendra Sahu,Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri C.Jayant K.Rao, Advoeate for the respondent No.4. 3 .•-> (Passed on this 19'" day ofApril, 2011) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P?5), the petitioner, working as A^istant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub Division- Champa, District Janjgir-Chgmpa, has been transferred tp Sarangarh, on administFative grounds. Howeyer, by virtue of order dated 16.12.2010, the order dsted 14.12.2010, which is impugned hereiri could not be given effect -to, wherein this Court directed to maintain status quo. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is continuing at the originai place of posting. Since more than four months have passed and in view of the order dated 16.12.2010, the petitioner is continuing atthe original place of posting, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case at this stage. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the Government may be granted liberty to pass a fresh order without insisting on compliance of order dated 14.12.2010, in respectof the petitioner. In view ofthe above submission, according to ieamed counse! for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudicatlon atthisstage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforestated observation and liberty, ifso advised. . ^l ashok ^J."l-.Sd/-•.:&,,'- Satis^K.Agiuhotri' ~ Judge;