HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wiit Pctition No. 2092 of2QQ3 £SIIITCLNER : Narayan Lal Sahu, S/o Late Shri BalAamm Sahu, aged about 48 years, R/o Bhanupmtappur, Tah. Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker (CG). VERSUS RESPQNDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, througfa Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Water Resources, Development, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Deptt. of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawao, Bhopal (MP). 3. Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG), 4. Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Bhanupratappur, Kafflker (CG). 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Departaient ofWater Resources (Division No. 2) Survey No.2, Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker(CG). (WRir pETrnoN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TH& coNSTrrunoNOF INDIA) rSB: Hontble Mi. Satish K. Aenihotri. J.> Present : Shri Y.C. Shanna, Advocate for the petitioiier. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 4th day ofJuty, 2008) 1. Wifh the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner submits that fhe petitioner was transferred to District Hoshangabad (MP) by order dated 31.07.1994. The petitioner was not permitted to join his new ptece of posting i.e. at Hoshangabad (MP). The petitioner, after waiting for such a long period, for about 9 years, filed this petition on 28.04.2003 without foUowing the order oftransfer. 3. This petition has been filed after a period of 9 years after passing the transfer order. Thus, tiie present petition cannot be estertained after a lapse of 9 years, particulariy when the p^titioner has failed to explain latches and delay in filing the petition. :nl 4. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, leamed counsel appearing fbr the State submits that the petitioner has been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and the posting order has already been issued on 02.11.2002 (Annexure R/7). He further submits that in view offhe posttng ord^, notfaing siirvives in this matter. 5. After hearing leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties, perusiag the pleadings and documentsappended Iheretos, it appears that, tibis petition has become infmctuous as nothing remains for adjudication. Thus, this petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. At the reqiaest of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, Hberty is reserved to the petitioner to take up the issue of grant of salary before the concemed authority, ifso advised. No order asto cost. Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge