% & ^ > ITK NER HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTiSGARH WRiT PETITION I'S'i N0. 2208 OF Umesh Kumar Vaishnav, S/o Shri Gopal Das Vaishriav, aged about 59 yeara, R/o H/2 Govemment Coiony, Kallash Nagar, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Versus iTS 1. State of Chhattisgam, through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Executive Engineer, Water Resourees Department, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 3. Election Commisslon of India, through Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, Npw Delhi. 4. Distrlct Election Officer and Cetlsctor, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 5. S.D. Baahel, Divisionai Cierk, Laghu Jal Sansadhan Upsambhag, Rajnandgaon under Article 226 of the Constitution of indi-a) ingle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shrl Anoop Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for ttie State. ORAL ORDER (Passad on thia 29'" day of Aprii, 2009) By this Retition, the petitioner impugns the o'rder dated 9-4-2009 (Annexure - P/2) whereby the petitioner has not been transferred to any other place, however. the work of SeniQr Accounts Clerk ijhas been allocated to him inihe same sub division underthe office ofthc txecutiv® Engineer.WaterResourceDepartment.RajnaRdoaoi'!. ' 2) The main contention of the petitioner is that even the allocation of work cannot be done by the Executive Engineer. The contention of the petitioner is misconceived becauss by order dated 9-4-2009 (nnnexure— P/2) me petitlQner has been •direeted to look after thework of^ih'Sagtiel temporariiy. L-- ^ '-I Gowri 3) ' in respect of ailocation ofwork, tKe High Gourt will not interfere, as thisistheresponsibilityoftheemployertoailocateorassigntheworktoits employee as per the requirement. 4) . The further contention ofthe petitioner is that during existence of Codeof Conductthe impugned orderhas been passed. In this reoard.it is observed that if the petitioner has any grievance, thfe petitioner can very weli movethe competent authority challengino the action ofthe auihority concerned. ' 5) The courts or tribunals, which are appeilate authorities, shQuld refrain from considerinfl the niceties of ihe administrative needs and requirements of the sitaation concerned. (See State of U.P. and others vs.Gobardhan Lal'1. i 6) Thus, this writ petition being devoid of merit is accbrdingly dismissed atthe motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge ^