@ \ SSémg‘Ea @wmh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (4/1 (Hy/K W.P. (S). No. /77% /2011 y , Harish Pandey, S/o Shri J.R.Pandey, Aged about 50 years, Currently working as Forest Ranger, Panduka, R/o Forest Compound, Panduka, Tehsil. Chhura, ' Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Petitioner Versus Respondents : 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Forest Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) ’ The Divisional Forest Officer, East Raipur Forest Division, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3) Tehsildar/Census Officer, Chhura, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPI IR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 4784 01‘2011 PETITIONER : Harish Pandey. VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hongble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Kashif Shakeel, ADvocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on‘19 day of August, 201 1) ‘ l. Learned counsel appearing for the petitoiner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Zonal Ofticer for conducting the work of Census 2011 under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Census Act, 1948 (37 of 1948) vide order dated 25.07.2011 (Annexure P/5). Thereaiter, by order dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner, working as Forest Ranger was transferred from Panduka, Forest Division, West Raipur to Forest Division, Raipur. 2. The question asto whether an employee engaged in Census may be transferred before completion of Census work‘, came into consideration before this Court in Chandrika Prasad Sinha v. State of Chhaitisgarh} and other connected matters. This Court, having considered all the aspects of the matter, held that an employee engaged in the Census may not be disturbed prior to its completion. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by several employees was allowed. Shri Shakeel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue / 1 \N.P.(S‘)"l\‘io. 3444 of 201 0. decided on 05.10.2010 involved herein is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in the aforestated case. . Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondents submits that there is no dispute with regard to the above stated submission and as such, the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly. . Having regard to the fact situation of the case, the impugned order dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect of the petitioner is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner may continue at the same place till the work of Census is complete. 5. Accordingly, the wn‘t petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. /— . E}. j r Satish K.Agnihotri 1 Judge /, Sd/- Arnit s;