c SINCIIE IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition(S)NO. ^-\^ OF 2008 SERVICE MATTER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND/ORA SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER PETITIONERS M.D. Chandra, S/o Shri Ujit Ram Chandra, Aged about 48 years, Posted as Sub Engineer, R/o Block Colony Janpad Panchayat Nagri, Dhamtari, District — Dhamtari (C.G.) D.R. Dahariya, S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Dahariya, aged about 45 years, Posted as Sub Engineer, R/o Block Colony Janpad Panchayat Nagri, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur(C.G.) Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, Through: Chief Executjve Officer Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) Superintendence Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna Office of Vikas Ayukta Raipur (C.G.) Project Implementation Unit, Through: Executive Engineer, Pradhan Mantri, Gramin Sadak Yojna, Nagari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) AF^ IIIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN^S) No. 7181 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 K.P. Choukse. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. .^LONGVVITH W.P.(S)No. 4994/2007,6415/2008, 6695/2008,7165/2008, 164/2009,306/2009, 352/2009,604/2009,670/2009,701/2009,2418/2009, 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 and 4949/2009. / WRIT PETI'nON UNDER ARTICLES 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Slm Satish K. Agiuhotri. J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwatii, Shri Saiideep Dubey, Shri P.P.Sahu, Ms. Sharmila Singhai with Sliri Sanjay Agi'awal, Sbiri M.V.Paranjpe, Ms. Morisha Chattri on behatfofShri Y.C.Shanna, Sliri Chandresh Slirivastava, Advocates for tlie respective petitioners. Sliri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Govemment Advocate forthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 09U1 day of December, 2009) 1. The present batch of petitions VE. W.P.(S) No. 7181/2008, 4994/2007, 6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165/2008, 164/2009, 306/2009, 352/2009, 604/2009, 670/2009, 701/2009, 2418/2009, 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009 4455/2009 and 4949/2009 involve a common question oflaw asto whetiier tlie petitioners, who are deputationists in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department aiid^oi^ted in Rural Engineeruig Sen/ices, may be transfen-ed to Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Autliority and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, and as such, all these petitions are being disposed ofby a conimon order. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were originally appointed in the Water Resources Department and Irrigation Depai-tment on the post of Sub Engineer. The petitioners were sent on deputation to tlie Rural Engineering Ser/ices of Panchayat and Rural Development Depai-tinent. AJXUL. Therealten tlie petitioiiwrs coiilinued in.thw.said departoieni. without tiier^ being any absoiption or repatriation to their respective parent departaient. 3. In the meantime, by the impugiied orders dated 01.10.2008 [Annexiire P/1 to W.P.(S) Nos. 7181/2008, 641572008, 6695/2008, 7165//2008, 164/2009, 306/2009, 352/2009, 604/2009, 670/2009, 701/2009 & 2418/2009], 17.7.2007 [Aimexure P/4 to W.P.(8) No. 4994/2007] and 29.06.2009 [^mexure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 & 4949/2009], tlie petitioners, without their consent, have been transten'ed to Cliliattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojaiia, which according to the petitioners are not part of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Thus, the impugned transfer orders are in question in tliis batch ofpetitions. 4. Slm Y.S.Thakui', leamed Deputy Govenmient Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits, on instructions, that admittedly, the petitioners were posted on deputation iii the Rural Engmeeririg Ser^ices of the Panchayat &. Rural DevelQpment Department. Now the State Govemment has decided to repatriate the petitioners to their respective parent departments. Slm Thakur llirtlier submits that till tlie fmal order of repatriation of the petitionei's to their pai'ent department is passed, the . aibrestated impugned transfer orders shall not be given effect to. 5. At this juncture, leamed counsel appearing for the respective petitioiiers submit that in the light ofclear and categorical submission made by leanied Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, nothing sun'ives in the present writ petitions for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge