/' IN THE HIQH GOURT_OP GHHAatT2S<3AI ! AT BIIASgUR W»P»NG.^(G^ OP 2003 / • PETITIONERS i ^ f .^•'. :^ ..'^^'^' ^§?:" .N'^<\-^^>*' .-•".^^'' •yy t^*>' '^y » !• Shobbnath YJlwari, Son @£ Binde^awarA TAwari, aged ab@ut 55 years^ w@rkiag as Re'veaxe Inspector, R 1 Glxiele, Baileuntb" pur^ Distt » K©rAy& 2. B»P»Mlshra, Son ®fSh.lvaBand Mishra^ aged abeut 40 ye&xs werking as Patw&ri, Petwari ward N@« 4, Balkunthpur, Distt s Koriya ¥ERa?S RE^ONDEm'S State ©fGhhattAsgaila thr©ugh tlie Secxetary, jDep&rtment @f Re^enise^ E)^K»S»BhavaB^ Mantraft lay&^ Raipur^ Dlstt » Raipur, 2» G@UeGfe@r, Distt $ KerAya At s Baikimtl^pur, Distt » K©riya« ./' ,WRIT KETrE'IO£3V ERARTICXJSS 226/22T OF_S® COMSTITOTIGN OP IKDI^ XI-HC-22 ± (^ -^^ •?qp^|^ "STftTFT^^ ^.(......^fl.l^ •••'•^ ^ 2W} •ra^y' ^T^^Tf | f^iw^nt^" ?OTNr ^?f^' 3T?^T "^TT^R '^fN J '^'[^T7^ ^TR^ff 'H fei7t 'n^SK J ^- ^T^R "^T^f 8-8-2003 Shri Prashont Mishra, coun^l for 1+i©petitioner5, Shri Ranbir Singh, ©ovt| respondents, By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have jchallen9ed the order of the Collector, Koriya, dated 24-6-200^ (Annexure P/l) by which the Collector (respondent No.2) has or^le d 1+iat •rfie presence of the Advocate for the State/ petitioners will not be accepted. jAs per 1tie averments made sn the petition, the petitioner 410*1 Shobhnal+i Tiwari was transferred from Revenue Inspjector Circle. Baikunthpur to bistrict bantewada and -rfie pe-tjtioner No.2 B.P. Mishra was Tronsferred from Patwari Circle Dantewada, by order dated Thereafter by order dated 4-6| No.4, Baikunthpur to District 24-4-2003 (Annexur*® P/2). -2003 (Annexure P/4) these trarisfers were cancelled by the State fiovernment. On passin9 Xl-iIC-22 T ^ ^^ ^TRFoT^/^ft^n^/t^Tray' ^IT^T^H- ^iT^-^Ti^T '^:[N)~';c:rft7:[ tiPi^T^W^' ^\qs{^ 1-^ 20<) 'l^^.sr ^ this order both the petitioners ^[^rf^PfPT ^TR^f ^ fer7t Tf:5RZR ^T W.^TT .^[^T returned back to Itieir original po^tin9 ploce and ^ubmitted joini^ report vide Annexure P/5 and Annexure P/6. However/ the re^pondent No.2 made a reference to the Revenue Secretary and asljced for the 9uidance at the same time copies were endorsed to the| petitioners in which it has been mentioned that their presence wil| not be accepted, The notice of this writ peljition was accepted by the State counsel or: 11-7-2003 <md learn^d State counsel requested two weeks time to file the return w|iich was allowed to him. Todoy when the matter wos called out tbe learned ^overnment Advocate again sought time. But since s<(ifficient time has aiready been granted and the matter is very fi^iort. Moreover, the transfer of the petitioners was made by the ^tate ©oyernmenTand the State ^overnment cancelled that ord@r| The petitioners have returned back their original place of postin^s. ^l^ -+-- XI-HC-22 ^.^..) '^^'^TPTloTO, '^'TTTW^, ~^ 33lt^T^T W^f< >3TI^T '^R'NTTrft^ 6^ ^ oP z^\ci TnTs^T-%T?ra?""""""""""""""""""""wi;. 2w •t^^' ^Tq^f^ T^^ ^ fe^t TN^H ^ 3TFa^ •'3:TI^T I fdled to understand as -^p why the respondent No.2 is not allowin9 the petitioners to work they are sitting without oiny wo] at their places and, in thi^ case |<k ond ultimately they take the ^alary without doing any work ar|d that will be loss to the public exchequer. There was no questicjn of seeking any advise from the State Government eyen then in oh arbitrary manner the Collector is not allowing the petitioners toj work at their place of posting, therefore, in view of the abov^ focts and circumstances, the order of the respondent No.2 i^ quashed and it is directed to allow -rfie petitioners to work at t|ieir place of postin9 from where they were relieved in pursuanc4 of the transfer order dated 24-4-2003 (Annexure P/2). The writ petition is dispose^ I.A.No.6090/Z003 stands dispose<|( of of accordingly. In view of the above order, M.(W).P.No.l829/2003 ond Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 1--^, -.^; ^' d'^