1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P (S) N0. l~i '?--?J _ /2010 P.K. Khare, S/o. Late M.P. Khare, aged about 59 years, R/o. Qtr. No. F-1, Irrigation Colony, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2] Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sinhawa Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3] Ajay Kumar Sharma, Executive Engineer (Design), Office of Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4^ •ti^ES;' -'^s p Khars Versus State of Chhattisaarh & Others WRST PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF !ND!A Shri Manoj Par Shri N.N.Roy, Pane Shri Yashwant Ti' Advocate for the Lavvyer forthe State/respondent No.1 & 2. i, Advocate for the respondent No.3. 3. /I's^^-^.-*-^-,", ^'^^'4^-^f .^.f i^yr.s'^^s ^r\4-i\ (r-'aSScQ On 'l £"ucy' OT january, ^u'i i; Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been directed to handover the charge of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Pendraroad, to the respondent No.3, who is holding the substantive post of Executive Englneer in the Water Resources Department. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Assistant Engineer and for'wsnt of avaliability of Executive Engineer, he was transferred from Water Resources Sub Division- Khongsara to Water Resource Division Pendraroad, as in- charge Executive Engineer, Since, the petitioner has on!y thi-ee months in service to retire, the petitioner may not be disturbed at this stage. On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned counse! appearing for the State/ respondent No.1 & 2 submits that the petitioner was given the charge of Executive Engineer, as there was no officer of the rank of Executive Engineer availabie. Once|the officer holding the substantial rank of Executive Engineer i.e. the respondent No.3 is posted there, t.here is if ;!' .,,::- '^--"••'\'' 4. no reason asto why the petitioner, who is Assistant Englr not be dispiaced from that place. Shri Tiwari, learned counsei appearing for the respondent No.3 advances t'ne same submission. 5. The contention of Shri Paranjape that there is no post of Sub Divisional Officer or Assistant Ena.ineer availabie in Water Resources Division, Pendraroad, and no order of posting of the petitioner been passed, thus, the order directing the petitioner to handover charae to the respondent No.3 is bad in law and deserves to suashed. as it mav, it is indisputable that the petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Engineer and the respondent No.3 is Executive Engineer. The petitioner was posted as in-charge Executive Engineer in Water Resources Division, i, as no onscer was availaDie. Once, the officer is avajlabie for posting, the petitioner cannot ciaim, as a matter of right to t'ne post, on the ground that no order h.as been passed removing him from the office ofthe Executiye Engineer. Thus, the above-stated contention of Shri Paranjpe is according rejec.ted. Havina reaard to the fact that the petitioner is to retire within three months, the State authorities may consider posting him elther in the same piace as Assistant Engineer or nearby piace, so that he may not be disturbed affecting his service career substantially within a period of three months. 8. "" In view of foregoing, the petition stands dlsposed of. No order asto cots. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ashok