^ (9 c^ ^<^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( S ) No. ^^^- Of 2010 PETITIONER: •^ ^' RESPONDENTS: ..•^ .^s- ..^•..^•''' /<\° /^^ ...<^' 4'^z<^ ^"^ x^' 4"<^/" ,/Y ^/^' ^" ,^t""ss/^ !s/' ^x<^ i ^. j S.^<»^hi'S<$ ^^ V^s^ ^^. \r^/7^^. / M. R. Yadu S/o Panch Ram Yadu, aged about 49 years, occupation - seryice, posted as a Assistant Developnaent Extension Officer at Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasainund (CG). Versus /l. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Developnient Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). ^2. The Under Secretary, Goveminent of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural Developinent Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 3. TheChiefExecutiveOfficer, District Panchayat Mahasamund (CG). 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^:- ^'£i -'iK%, / •^ ^^^1 /--. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :^1LASEUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5227 OF 2010 PETITLQNER RESPQNDENTS M.R. Yadu Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate forthe respondents No.3 & 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 1stdayofJuly, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 12-7-2010, the petitioner, working as Assistant Development Extension Officer, has been transferred from Basana to Geedam, on administrative grounds. However, by virtue of order dated 22-9-2010, the order dated 12-7-2010, which is impugned herein could not be given effect to, wherein this Court directed to maintain status quo. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is continuing at the original place of posting. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the petitioner has already continued at the original place of posting for more than 9 months on account of interim order dated 22-9-2010 granted by this Court. The respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view .public interest and administrative exigency. Learned counsel further submit that the respondents shall not insist upon compliance of the impugned order dated 22-9-2010. It is accordingly ordered. 3. Since more than nine months have passed and in view of the order dated 22-9-2010, the petitioner is continuing at the original place of posting, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case at this stage. 4. In view of the above, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication at this stage. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforestated obsen^ation and tiberty, ifso advised. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge