/ $ (j @ 9707/ (i) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHTTISGARH, AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION S NO. OF 2009 / C. K. CHANDRAKAR, AGED - 50 YEARS, PETITIONER SON OF SHRI KISHAN RAM, WORKING AS — SUB — ENGINEER, R/O PATAN, DISTRICT - DURG (C. G.) VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MANTRALAYA, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR. 2. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, I DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, MANTRALAYA D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR (LAND RECORDS) DISTRICT - DURG (C. G.) CHHATTISGARH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, A THROUGH - THE CHIEF XECUTIVE OFFICER, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR (C. G.) RESPONDENTS ( Writ Petition Under Article — 226 of the Constitution of India 1. Particulars of the petitioner(s) Asgabove in cause title. 2. Particulars of the respondent(s) As above in cause title. N AT —- JANPAD PANCHAYAT, PATA, DISTRICT - DURG (C. G.) E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {ED N0. 7181 of 2008 PETITIONER : KP. Choukse. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Othérs. ALONGWITH W.P.(S) N0. 4994/2007, 5415/2008, 6695/2008: 7165/2008, 164/2009: 306i‘2009; 352/2009, 604/2009, 67012009, 701/2009, 2418/2009, 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 and 4949/2009. T PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble him Satish K. Agnil1am. J. r Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Shri P.P.Sahu, Mg Sharmila Singhai With Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Shri M.V.Paranjiae, Ms‘ Morisha Chattri on behalf of Shri Y.C.Sham1a, Shri Chandrash Shrivastava, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Government Advocate for ihe State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 09 day of December, 2009) 1. The present batch of petitions viz. 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 comn1o11 question of law asto whether the petitioners, who are deputationists in the Panchayat and Rural Development Depaitment and posted in Rural Engineering Services: may be transt'en‘ed to Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority dud Pradhan Marrtri Gram Sadak Yojna. and as such, all these petitions are beirrg disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were originally appointed in the Water Resources Department and Irrigation Department on the post of Sub Engineer. The petitioners were sent on deputation to the Rural Engineering Services of Panchiiyat and Rural Development Department; I ERI 1 Thai-33:31; m: iyeiiiimm's emiinucd m ms said depanm‘mu wiihvui mere being any absorption 0r rapa‘triation x0 their respective parent departmam. 3. In the meantime. by the impugned orders daied ()1. 10.2008 [Armexura P/l to W.P.(S) Nos. 7181/2008: 6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165/2008, 164f2009, 305/2009. 352;“2009, 604/2009, 670/2009, 701/2009 & 2418/2009]. 177.2007 [Amiexure PM to W.P.(S) N0. 4994/2007] and 29.06.2009 {Aimexure P/l 10 W.P.(S) N0. 3894/2009, 3895/2009. 3896/2009, 4455/2009 & 4949/2009], the petitioners; witlmut their consent, have been Iransfx—zn‘ed 10 CMxattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority and 1 ‘ ?rac1haxi Maniri Gram Sadak Yojana. which according to the petitioners’are mi part of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Thus, the impugned transfer orders are in question in this batch of petitions. 4. Shri Y.S.Thakur, 1eamed Deputy Govemment Advocate appearing tor the State/respondents submits. on instructions, that admittedly, the petitioners were posted on deputation in the Rum} Engineering Services of the Panehayat & Rural Deveiopmem Department. Now the State Government has decided to repatriate the petitioners to their respective parent departments. Shri Thakur further submits that till the final order of repatriation of the petitioners to their parent depaitinent is passed, the at‘orestated impugned transfer orders shall not be given eifect to. 3. At this juncture. learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submit that in the 1ight of clear and categorical submission made by learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, nothing survives in the present writ petitions for adjudication. 6.. Accordingly, all the Writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs .w ' _Sd/— r . Satish K. Agnihotri v Judge ym