IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. 2t I2. [2011 PETITIONER / R.K.Sahu S/o Shri Ghasiram Sahu aged abt 52 yrs.R/o- Pathak Chal Chandaniya Para, Janjgir Distt.Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS a /, RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisga'rh through: Secretary xi.» W Panchayat and Rural Development Department,D.K.S.Bhawan,Mantralaya Raipur C.G.) 2. Engineerin Chief Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan Raipur (C.‘G.) 3. Executive Engineer Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yo§ia Project implementation unit no.2 Dharam Jaigarh,District- Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS l ORDER I DIRECTIONS . ...... .. . ... .......... .. .. ( WRIT E’ETI'I’ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 O. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 05m day of May, 2011) I. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was rendering his services in the Water Resources Department as Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was sent on deputation in the month of May to the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna under the respondent No. 3. Thereaiten Vide order dated 12.1 1.2010 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner has been directed to join his parent department i.e. with the respondent N0. 2. Since the petitioner was not relieved for a long time to join his parent department, he moved an application on 03.12.2010 but no action has been taken by the respondent No. 3 to relive the petitioner. 2. Shri Pandey further submits that once the order of transfer has been passed to repatriate the petitioner in his parent department: it is for the government to ensure that it is complied with immediately. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sreedam Chandra Ghosli v. State ofAssam & others], in support of ’ 1 (I996) 10 SCC 567 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR éi WRIT PETITION (S) No. 21 12 of2011 PETITIONER R.K.Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. 2% 2 his contention that ifthe order is not complied with, a direction can be issued for enforcement thereof. 3. On the other hand, Slm' Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respendents submits that there may be some administrative exigency on account of which, the petitioner may not have been relieved. However, he thither submits that if the order dated 12.12.2010 (Aimexure P/l) is still in existence and has not been complied with, appropriate steps would be taken to comply with the order. 4. It‘the aforesaid order is still in existence and there is no other order contrary to the order dated 12.12.2010 (Annexure P/l), the government is under an obligation to comply with the same at once. It is accordingly directed that the order dated 12.12.2010 (Armexure P/l) shall be complied with forthwith, within a period oftwo weeks. 5. AccordingIY; this petition is disppsedM of. a/,.d ,//\ E Sdl—' i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge