1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5034/2004. (SESA RAM VS. STATE & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 17.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Meghraj Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Dy.GA, for the respondents. The petitioner while working as Cattle Guard with Dy. Conservator of Forest, Udaipur was declared surplus and by the order dated 07.08.2004 his service was absorbed in the office of Collector, Chittorgarh. A challenge is given to the order aforesaid on the count that the petitioner served the Forest Department for number of years, therefore, instead of declaring him surplus and absorbing in District Chittorgargh, he would have been retained in services in district Udaipur. In reply to the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner joined the service with respondent department as a Cattle Guard (Work Charge) on 04.04.89 and due to non- availability of adequate posts, he was declared surplus. In pursuant to a decision dated 10.12.1991 taken by the State Government, an order for absorption of surplus work charge staff against the equivalent post in another department was passed. The petitioner, therefore, was placed at the disposal of Divisional 2 Commissioner, Udaipur and the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur made an order for absorption of the petitioner's service in the office of the Collector, Chittorgarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. The fact that the petitioner was a work charge employee and the post of Cattle Guard in work charge cadre was not available with the respondent department is not in dispute. In such circumstances, the respondents adopted the best available course to declare the petitioner surplus and to absorb him in service on an equivalent post. Relevant to note that a member of work charge cadre is having no right to claim absorption in service on being declared surplus, but in the present matter absorption was made as a consequent to a policy decision taken by the government and that is in interest of the workman. The order impugned, therefore, in any manner is not unjust or arbitrary. The writ petition, therefore, is having no merit and as such is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/