&.»'-" Cf^^s^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P.(S)NO. \\~\-S OF 2010 PETITIONER \~..--' ,-ju\^_"'frjy>_-" ...••'* .^''.%<l."v"l®.--" ^•?'^-s\'&. .^.' •SiP-'' ;•%'••• RESPONDENTS VERSUS /:1. "\w^s^' ^-2. / 3. P.L.Kumbhkar, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shri Heera Ram Kumbhkar, Sub Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bijapur District Bijapur (C.G.) . State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Commissioner, Baster (Jagdalpur) Distt. Bastar(C.G.) Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Bijapur, Distt. Bijapur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUIONOF INDIA 1=?N HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETmONfS) No.l 175 of2010 PETmONER : P.L.Kumbfakar. VERSU8 RESPONDENTS : State ofChh^tisgaA & Others. Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 QfThe Constitution Qflndia SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Sliri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, G.A. forthe State/respondeitfs. ORALORDER (Passed on 22nl day of March, 2010) With the consent ofleamed counsel q>pearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner sidMnits Aat despite the order dated 30 June, 2009 (Annexure P/l), Ihe petitioner, wcnkmg as Sub Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bijqwr, Disttict Bijapur, has been fraisferred to the office of Sub Divisicmal Qfficer, Divisi&n No. 3, Pusaur, District Raigarii, <m administrative grounds. However, 1fae petitioner has not yet been relieved to join the new plaee ofposting. Shri Prajapati submits that once the order oftransfer has been passed, it is fpr the govemment to ensure that it is conq>lied with nnmedi^ely. He relies on a decision ofthe Supreme Court in Sreedam Chandra Ghoshv. State ofAssam & others^, m support ofhis coatention that ifdie order is not complied with, a direction can be issued for enfiM-cemeut thffeof. 2. Shri Bakshi, leamed Govemment Advoeate aiyeariag tor the State/respondents, as usual prays for tune to seek mstructions. 3. I am unable to understand asto wfaat mstructi(»she needs iftiiere is an order on record. Ifthe aforesaid transfer order is still in existence, the govemment is under an obligation to eomply with the same at once. Itis accordingly directed that Ihe transfer order shaU be complied fiathwith within a period oftwo weeks fi-om today. 4. Aecordmgly,thispetiti<Miisdi8posedof. j Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit ' (1996)108cc 567