EV THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 6 /2009 PETITIONERS .-/, •^ :,js RESPONDENTS }6^M^ ^f^ 1] Y.K. Shrivastava, S/o. . Late Radheshyam Sharaa, Aged about 5 1 years, Sub-Engineer, Jaripad Panchayat Batauli, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) R.K. Jain, S/o. Mitthulal Jain, Aged about 48 years, Sub-Engineer, Janpad Panchayat Rajpur, District Surguja (CG) VERSUS 1]' State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2] Ghhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, through: Chief Executive Officer, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) 3] Superintending Engineering, Pradhanmatri Gram Sadak Yojna, Office ofVikas Ayukta, Raipur (CG) 4] ^Project Implementation Unit No.5, through: Executive Engineer, Pradhanmatri Gram Sadak Yojna, Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) 5] Project Implementation Unit No.9, through: Executive Engineer, Pradhanmatri Gram Sadak Yojna, Kusmi, District Surguja (CG) 6] Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur DistrictRaipur (CG) WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AF/? RIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH Art' BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) No. 7181 of2008 PETmONER RESPONDENTS K.P. Choukse. VERSUS State ofChliattisgarh & Others. AL.ONGWH'H W.P.(S) No. 4994/2007,6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165/2008, J64/2009, 306/2009, 352/2009. 604/2009,670/2009, 701/2009.2418/2009, 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 and 4949/2009. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA SB: HQn'bleShri Satish K. Aamhotri. J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Shi-i P.P.Sahu, Ms. Sharmila Singhai with Shi'i Sanjay Agrawal, Siai M.V.Paranjpe, Ms. Morisha Chattri on behalfofShri Y.C.Sharma- Shri Cliaiidresh Slirivastava, Advocates for tlie respective petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Govemment Advocate forthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 09th day of December, 2009) 1. Tlie present bateh of petitions viz. W.P.(S) No. 7181/2008, 4994/2007, 6415'20Q8, 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 invoive a comnion question oflaw asto whether the petitioners, who are deputationists in the Panchayat aiid Rural Development Department and posted in Riu-al Engineering Services, may be transfen'ed to Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development AutSiority and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojaa, and as such, all these petitions are being disposed ofbya conunon order. 2. Tlie facts, in nutsheil, are that the petitioners were originally appointed iii flie Water Resources Department and Imgation Department on the post of Sub Engineer. The petitioners were sent on deputation to the Rural Engiiieering Services of Panchayat and Rural Development Departinent. \ •4-. .^mt Thereajlcr; tlis pstrtioncrs coiiiiiiued in 'thc said dcpaitoieitt witliout iheii. being any absorption 01- repatriation to their respeetive parent department. In the meantime, by the iinpugned ordere dated 01.10.2008 [Annexure P/l 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 [.^imexure P/4 to W.P.(S) No. 4994/2007] and 29.06.2009 [Amsxure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 & 4949/2009], the petitioners, without their consent, have been transterred to CUiattissarii Rural Road Development Authority and Pradhaii Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, which according to the petitioners^are not part of the Panchayat and Rural Development Depanment. Thus, tlie impugned transfer orders are ia question iii this batch ofpetitions. Slii'i Y.S.Thakiu', leamed Deputy Govenmient Advocate appeai-ing for the State/respondents submits, on instructions, that admittedly, the petitioners were posted on deputation iii the Rural Engineering Services of tlie Paachayai & Rural Development Department. Now the State Goveminent has decided to repatriate the petitioners to their respective parent departments. Sliri Thakur fiifther submits that till the final order of repatriation of the petitionei-s to fheir pai-eat department is passed, the afbrestated impugned transfer orders shall not be given effect to. At fhis juncture, leamed counsel appearing for the respective petiiiouers submit that in the light ofclear and categorical submission made by leanied Deputy Advocate General appearing for tlie State, nothing sun-ives in the pressnt writ petitions for adjudication. Accordmsly, all the wr'ft petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge St]