1 '.^ IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHMATnSGARH AT B1LASBUR 8388 WRIT PETITION fSl N0. • OF 2006 PETITIONER RR.NB......—l.n.—••<-/"<(•"•""""•'—*' Presented by Sm^.^lte."?..'^- dated.........^^.^56.............-" Abdul Latif Sheikh, S/o Shri Abdul Sattar Sheikh Aged about 44 years Sub -Engineer, presently Posted as Asslstant Engineer, Additional Charge, Public Health Engineering,Sub Division Katghora, District Korba, (Chhattisgarh) V^ R S UJS RESPONDENTS ,\\r ^^^ 1. Union of India Through the Director Ministry of Personnel, Public Greviances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, 3rt Floor Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 2. State of Chhattisgarh (a) Through Secretary Public Health Engineeririg,. DKS Bhawan,Mantralaya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (b) Through Secretary Department of General Administration & Reorganisation Cell, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3. State of Madhya Pradesh (a) Through Secretary Public Health Engineering, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) (b) Through Secretary Department of General Administration & Reorganisation Cell, Vallabh Btiawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) A Chairman, The State Reorganisation Cell, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal -^ •-/5. Shri.Vimal Sharrna, S/o Not Known, Sub- Engineer /Store-in- Charge, Engineer -in-Chief, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS. XI-HC-78 *TT*T^TI Sti*11<h 3^'a(Tin?ra', eiTdy'is, RfciKriy ^^..^^^..^i^20oC W^l 4^* (lie't^q^) ai^rqiTR.ii* cISfT3n^?T»lif ^1:;.1' g3| m ?¥(iRK(ri?g'3ii^T 10.8.2006:- Incfia Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Dalpati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, Standinj Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Go\jt |(a) & (b). Heard on admission. The main grievance of the |Engineer in the Public Health [District Korba, is that at the time of |the petitioner was provisionally |where he was already working, and| |State of Chhattisgarh. However, h^ IDnder the scheme of Union of [namely Shri Vimal Sharma, another] |the State of M.P. gave their consen|l [allocation to the effect that respond^i |M.P. and the petitioner be |However, inadvertently by mistake i'h [namely Shri Abrar Sheikh was alloc^il |the request of respondent No.5 was ^l Further case of the petitioner his consent for allocation to the |Abrar Sheikh had also expired. ^gain made a representation to the Shhattisgarh noticing the grievance the petitioner to the Central alloc^ted in Goverriment qiiqfepfl^ ITffleJt'ff fe1^'<f°R?IT ^grf^TaTT^r Sr. Advocate with Shri Akhilesh Counsel for respondent No.1. . Advocate for the respondent No.2 Ipetitioner, who is working as Sub En^ineering Department at Katghora, |Re-organization of the State of M.P. ali<)cated to the State of Chhattisgarh later on, he gave his option for the was allocated to the State of M.P.. he and respondent No.5 herein Sub Engineer, who was working in 3en|t for mutual transfer before the final knt No.5 be allocated to the State of to the State of Chhattisgarh. place of the petitioner one person |ited to the state of Chhattisgarh and (Iso accepted. |s that Shri Abrar Sheikh never gave of Chhattisgarh. Unfortunately, Lo|oking to this mistake, the petitioner of Chhattisgarh and the State of cjf the petitioner forwarded the case of on 25-4-2006 for allocation of Stbte P.T.O. ^ XI-HC-78 5s? '^ww^, yxfl^'is, Ki<ii<-iy *nH?ll sb*ll<h V^ 200 311^1 4d* (yii^q^) sn^T^rf^THi (lan'sn^Tsbil'b f- <• !l ^ Barve SRnwnfsTsn^T -^ services of the petitioner to the Sta$ decided and still pending considerat| Shri Bhishma Kinger, tearn|ed Union of India, submitted that it N recpmmen^ation of the State of before the respondents, and the Ce(itral to decide the sam®,therefore, he h4s for the decision ofthe representatior(. Having heard learned couns^l the facts and circumstances of the| decide the representation and as early as possible but not later the representatipn is decided, the on the present place of posting. Shri Bhishma Kinger to con^ respondentNo.1. With the direction aforesaid, Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.; stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certifieti of Chhattisgarh and that is not being :|on before the CentralGovernment. tearn|ed counsel appearing on behalf of correct that the representation and Qhhattisgarh is pending consideration Government is very shortly going h^s no objection if any direction is given for the parties and having regard to |case, respondent No.1 is directed to recoilnmendation of the State Govemroent 3 months from today. However, till itetitioner may be allowed to continue thdin wiferi^wmfff tetA rfwzK l?9^ITSi1^T ey the direction of this Court to the the petition stands disposed of. 103/2006 and I.A, No.7502/2006 also copy of this order today itself. Sd/- L.C-Bhadoo Judge P.T.O.