INTHEHIGHCOURTOrEJUDICATUREATBILASPUR (CHHATTI^GARH) W.P. No"" '•"12002 PETITIONER .^^y^ ^''^^''s^'" lt:' t^,^ ..(•;\-\'' ^^ RESPONDENTS <A aiq^ff, I/ (\ N /'^ fry ^^ .4- 7DrC.P AGREY, / S/Q ShriCL Agrey, Aged about 47 years, Assfc Surgeon (Under Suspension), ; R/o Chakrabhatta Camp, Bilaspur(CG). vs UNIONOFINDIA - Through- Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi. State of ehhattisgarhh, Through-Secretary, Mihistry of General AdministratiQn, DK Bhavan, Raipur. StateofMadhyaPradesh, Through - Chief Secretary, MinisfryofPublicHealth & FamilyWelfare Deptt., Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal. Director, HealtbtServices, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Chief Medical & Healtl-i Officer, Bilaspur (CG). ^: 3. 4. if' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICa-E 326/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF (NDtA v •II.! il-liUtULt.!- XI-HC-78 Hi*ioia?iT^ ^s^ '-tilfltriy, ui-^'<i<i(»,fiini'M^<< .^.^.^^.S.^li 3n^?T'WP(l<l{'d'st<i) ^200^ aii^STwR'iit' WITai^SIB^fe S^lTWSft?TW&?T 23.09.2005 Mr. P. Das and Mr. Vi^t petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, lear( for Union of tndia / respondent No.t Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, le^ of Chhattisgarh. Heard. Leamed counsel for the pe| is working as Assistant Surgejoi Ghakrabhata, District Bitaspur. q; Madhya Pradesh pursuant to Nl.fl State of Chhattisgarh was 23/24.09.2002, a tentative provisii|>nal without taking the consent ofthe of the petitioner to the State of M| for the petitioner submits that th|i allocated to the State of Chhaftij case, as the petitioner was bom ir( had done all his services in tHi provisional allocation order was as such the petitioner wants to m| of India for reconsidering his ca^ Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel decision dated 28.04.2003 in W.R. Court whereunder it was directed 'l'WfdA') t|14ri)'^ll«»d'((uifsit ^sri^ISII^CT ek Sharma, Advoeates for the led Central Government counsel rned Panel Lawyer for the State 'titioner submits that the petitioner m at Primary Health Centre, pn reorganization of the State of I. ReQrganization ftct, 2000, new' Ireated on 01.11.2000. On allocation order was passed, Ipetitioner, allocating the services tidhya Pradesh. Learned counsel i|s petitloner ought to have been fearh, in wew of the fact of the the State of Chhattisgarh ahd he |e State of Chhattisgarh. The [^assed without taking his consent tike a representation to the Union fee for allocation to the State of for the petltioner refers to a I.No.2354 of 2002 passed by this that till the decision is gK'en by r'- <\ ^i ;!j;' Jtlilt XI-HC-78 \jT,'c| »^|l<j'lri^,t»Ti1wi<o,Rs?ii'<iy'( mcCT^TO -^^-^3^^4-- ^tzqo^ OT^ST q^ (ijcrfg^) sn^CTwR-ii* aairsiI^STriili* \ ^t Sarroa-. ^, x S^nw^ri^TaiT^CT 2.- Stslte the Central Govemment on the petitioner would be allowed to not been relieved. Learned submits that by order dated 1,8.1 quo with regard to the posting Chhattisgarh was maintained. continued in the services in the Ms. Sharpiila Singhai, teai) appearing for Union of India Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyf respondents 2,4& 5 do not dif learned counsel.for the petitioner. in view of the order pfthis W.P.No. 2354 of 2002, the Union) representation of the petitioner permitted to continue his service) decision ofthe respohdent No.1, Inviewpfthefbregoing, th^ • Consequently, all pending of. - ; 'fftofn'il'i 1CTBF^ffe^ •rfui't'^ii ^si^rgn^tT r^presentation of the petitioner, the c<jntinue, in case the petitionerhad cjaunsel for the petitioner further 1.2002, passed by this Court.status |of the petitioner in the State of Acjcordingly, the petitioner has been of Chhattisgarh. tlned Central ©overnmsntcounssl respondent No.1, Mr. Pankaj ir for the State of Chhattisgarh / spute the facts as. stated by the Pourt dated 28,04.2003 passed in lof India. is directed to consider the 4<peditiQusty and the petitioner be in the State of Chhattisgarh till petitionstahds disposedof. lapplications also stand disposed Sd/- SatisbK.Agnihotri Judge •^' j-ltil w