c^\5r€] BEMCN BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. .^^\ W.P(s). N0 /10 PETITEONER:- VERSUS ESPONbENTS:- ^ .^••^^ ^°-v^ ^^vl^ ^^\CA.V ^.^Q^Y.V ' ^w' r>~^ T.R.Meshram.S/o t-aj-^ UQn^^ ^m M^^i^Durn ^t^^ <Moo^ A^ y<s^^? s^-o ^J<xJh<-Y ^sp<ji^e.T<^^ulo< SvjLb^vi^or^-^ l.The State of C.G.'.-Through Secretary, Water resources Department, D.K.S.Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) 2.Engineera-in-Chief,Water resources bepartment,Sihava Bhavan. Raipur (C.G.) 3.M.S.Chhabda,Assistant Engineer Tandula Division water resources department burg. C.G. WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTECLE 226 .227.THE CONSTETUTION OF INN&IA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTEORARI.MANDAMUS_ANb OTHER WRIT/WRITS /ORDERS ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. 5621 of2010 PETmONER : T.R.Meshram. RESPONDENTS VERSUS The State ofC.G. & Others. iiiiliir::iirniK' ^•niiiiniiiia,' WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Arvind Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri Shrijith C.S.Nair, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 20th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner, working as Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Sub Division Baloda Bazar, has joined at Tandula Water Resources, Sub Division No. 4, Durg, in compliance of the transfer order dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure P/l). Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure P/2), the earlier transfer of the petitioner was amended and the petitioner was directed to join in the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Tandula, Durg, as Assistant Engineer. This Court, vide order dated 29.09.2010, directed to maintain status quo, thus, the petitioner has continued at Sub Division No. 4, Tandula, as Sub Divisional Officer for more than six months. Thus., the State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Shri Shridhar further submits that the State/respondents shall not insist upon compliance ofthe impugned order dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure P/2). 2. At this stage, when no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure P/2) on account ofthe interim order dated 29.09.2010, it is not necessary to go into legality and validity ofthe impugned order dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure P/2). 3. In view ofthe above, according to leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner, nothing sur^ives in this petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge