HIGH COURT OF THE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No.1008 of 2007 Petjtipner Anil Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Brajvasi Prasad Mishra Aged 42 years, Employed as Sub- Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, Resident of : Chitra House, Mayapur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Versys Respondents 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Deptt. D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur 2 The Collector, Collectorate Office, Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G.) 3 The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G.) 4 The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Division No.1, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondents 1, 2 & 4 on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (29.07.2010) SUNIL KUIUAR SINHA, J. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Petitioner- Anil Kumar Mishra has filed this petition challenging the order dated 29.1.2007 (Annexure-P/7), by which, he was transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur to Janpad Panchayat, Batouli on administrative grounds. Mr. Uttam Pandey submits that the petitioner was transferred from one Janpad Panchayat to other Janpad Panchayat without seekii^g approval of^ ll^w ucU either the concerned Minister or the Chief Minister which accordihg to/ to the policy as there was complete ban even in the case of intra-district transfer. '^iSiflES^U.IllUjl'.i ,^ 35 vas~%. sia W.P.('S)No: 1008 of2007 This Court while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order on 21.2.2007 and directed that the status quo with regard to the placement of the petitioner, as obtained on the said date, shall be maintained till further orders. Mr. Pandey submits that according to his information thereafter the petitioner continued at his old place of posting. Be that as it may, since a period more than 3% years has elapsed after passing of the impugned order as also the interim order passed by this Court, I do not find any justification in deciding the controversy raised between the parties. Since this Court has already granted protective order in favour of the /^Q^-C^- \^. titioner/a long'time of about 3% years has elapsed thereafter, the petition is simply disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall not insist upon the petitioner to comply the transfer order dated 29.1.2007 anymore. However, they shall be free to post the petitioner at any place on their administrative exigency in accordance with law. The petition, therefore, is finally disposed of. Interim ordergranted on 21.2.2007 stands discharged. No orderas to cost. , . -.—-—— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge t