^ ^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRi DHJRENDRA MiSHRA, HON'BLE SHR! R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J WritAppeat No. 287 of 2010 Durga Prasad Sindoor, S/o Late Tako Sindoor, aged about 57 years, R/o Kalibadi Hospital Campus, Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur (CG) Versus tespondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Urban Adminisfration and Oeveiopment, iviantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 'he Municipai Corporation, Raipur, through the Commissioner, i^unicipai Corporation, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri PS Koshv, counsel for the a( Shri UNS Dso, Govt. Advocate for ilfant. the Stat- kth (19'"0ctober,2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 17 August, 2010 (Annexure A/1), whereby the appeitant's writ petition against the transfer from Municipai Corporation, Raipur to Municipal Corporation, Korba on administrative ground, has been dismissed. 02. Apart from other grounds, the appeilant has aiso challenged the above order on the around that the transfer order has been passed in contravention of Sections 58(5) and 58(6) of the Municipa! Corporation Act, 1956 (in short "the Act, 1956"). which cieariy stipulates that the transferred employee of ^unicipai Corporation shaii have his iien on the post held in the parent CorDoration and is also entitied for deputation aiiowances and shail be governed by the discipiinary controi, as specified by the State Government. 03. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have categorjcally stated that the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, 1956 have been followed while gpssing the impugned transfer order. The appellant wouid be retaining his lien with the parent Corporation i.e. Municipai Corporation, Raipur, which is the basic ingredient ofSection 58(6) ofthe Act, 1956. The State Govemment shall comply with the provisions made under Section 58(6) in the case of the appeltent and the State Government has already issued Cireular on 7.3.2CX)8 (Annexure R/1) to a!l the Corporations, specifica!5y directing that where any officer/employee of the Corporation has been trai deputation, 'm that case, the post heid by him would not post for the purposes of promotion. or sent on treated as vacant 04. In view of the submission made bv tearned counse! for the State that the provisions of Section 58(S) of the Act, 1956 have been followed and the appellant has been sent on deputation to Municipal Corporation, Korba and as per provisions of Section 58(6), he shaii have lien on the post he!d in the parent Corporation and he is entitled to deputation allowance, as provided under Section 58(6)(c), and further keeping in view the Circular of Annexure R/1, we are of the opinion that grievance of the appellant against the impugned order stands redressed- 05. With the aforesaid observations, the appea) is disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge K/'