W P (S) No 6716 of2007 $ n ishra ears Assistan ntegrated Tnba ct Amblkaur tlsgarh throug and Schedule t Departmen awan Raru The State of Chhat h the Secretary, Tnbal d 3‘ Caste Developmen t Mantralay, DKS Bh pr (CG) , nstratorIOfFcer Development Irstnct Surua (Writ Petion‘dAmd‘ 226 (ith Ction ordia) tiunere te, onstitu rn E on 173" November, 2007 unil umar inha, Har e petttroner Is working on the post of Assrstant Statrstlca Off'cer a mtapur By order dated 4‘" July, 2006 the petltroner was transferre fro mblkapur to Dharamlargarh Agamst the sard order the etrtroner fled n eiion No 3609/2006 The said petrtlon was disosed of b order date - -2006 and ollowmg order was assed by thrs Court aving ard learne oouns ‘the parties havin regar o te facts and circumstances of the case and Withou xpressmg any opinion on te merrt of the case the prae etition 'rs allowed to mak h a copy of thrs etitio ‘ i PETITIONER: HD Mishra S/o Sh SC M aged about 50 y t Statistical Offcer i ! Development Preje p District Surguja (CG) RESPONDENTS:_ . Prolect Admii Integrated Tnbal Prolect Ambrkapur gj (CG) Present: Mr. Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Dwlvecli, Panel Lawyer tot the State/respondents. ORAL ORDR I (Passed ‘ ) s K S J ed Th l t Abk d m A p Wt 7 Ptt (S) p y d 21 7 f p - “H he d ely ‘r g d t h t e h yr ,I per Is just fair and“ H r e a ...........‘. ' ' V 'V ' ‘ t pn 10 days from today and in tum, the respondent shall decide / the representation within a period af 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation, in an objective manner, after considering all the points raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law. However, the effect and operation of the impugned order in respect of the petitioner shall remain stayed, till the representation of the petitioner is decided.“ Thereafter, the petitioner tiled a representation as per the said order and his representation was dismissed by the concerned authority vide order dated 2-9-2006 (Annexure-P/S). Again after dismissal of the representation, for the second time,the' petitioner moved before the High Court by filing Writ Petition (S) No.51 39!2006 and in the said writ petition, on the ground, that the petitioner was still working at Ambikapur, an interim order dated 20-9-2006 (Annexure-P/4) was passed and it was directed that the place of posting of the petitioner may not be disturbed. ,As an effect of the said order, the petitioner continued at Ambikapur and ultimately, subsequent Writ Petition was tinally disposed of by order dated 16‘" April. 2007 where this Court observed as follows:- “Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous as period ,of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no/question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest andadministrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order." Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even though there was an observation of this Court that the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in View the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting upon compliance of the impugned transfer order dated 4-7-2006, but r again impugned order dated 6-1 0-2007 has been passed by the Government in which it is mentioned that in compliance of/the earlier transfer order dated ,4-7-2006 the petitioner should go and join/at his transferred place. He submits that the Government, without respecting the order of the High Court and further yvithout passing any subsequent order in respect of the petitioner, was not justified in insisting on compliance of the earlier order for which the High Co as made observation as abov urt h e. Ban/e ‘ @> l have con31dered the pomt ralsed by Iearned counsel for the petitioner Indeed m the order dated 16'" Apnt 2007 thrs Court has observed that due to efflux of trme there was no question to examine the validity of the transfer order however the respondents are at liberty to pass appropnate orders keeping m vrew the public Interest and admlmstratlve exrgency wrtheut msrstmg on compliance of the Impugned transfer order Therefore rmphedly, there was drrectlon of this Court not to msrst on compliance of the Impugned transfer order _ which should have been conSIdered by the concerned authorities and even if the servrces of the petitroner were required at transferred place instead of inSisting’ __ for complying With the earlier order they should have passed fresh order tn vrew of what has been stated above t deem rt proper to set asrde the L impugned order dated 6-1 0-2007 In the result the wrrt petrtron Is allowed and the :mpugned order dated I : 6-1 0-2007 is set asrde However It rs again observed that this order shall not come in the way of the State Government in passing appropriate order of transfer m respect of the petitioner If In fact such an admlnlstratwe exrgency arrses or an I‘ elementof publicinterestsubSists _ , I lr/IW r 1 Neorderastocosts. r ‘ _ ,v K ' ' ‘ 1 ,Sd/_ “1 V SunillKumar Smha V Judge