[IGHCQUlCTOF_CHHATTISGARH_ATBiyStSPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2187 of2007 RESPONDENTS VASUDEO KASHINATH SAWADE aged about 55 years, S/o Shii Kaslihiath Sawade, Presentlv posted as Deputv Manager tajya Been Krishi Vikas f~^ r^ i-.U. 1 ('Accouats) Nigam Liniited, Raipur (C.G.) R/o B-12, Phase ao. 1, Bcliind Clil-iattisgarh Hotel, Vishal Vihar, Raipun Distt. Raipur.fC.G.) ^TERSUS . Union of India Through: The Secretary, Mimstry ofPersotuiel, Public Grievatices aiiu PeiKion (Department of Persounel & Training), 3 Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawaii, Khan Market, New Delhi. 2. State of CUiattisgarh Tlirough: Secretary Departiitent of Agriculture, Maatralaya, Dau Kalyaii Singh Bhawaii, Raipur (C.G.) 3. State of Madhya Pradesh Tfarough: The Secretaiy, Depai-tment of Agt'iculture, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M:P. 4. Cliliattisgarlt Rajya Beej Evain Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, "Beej Bhawan" G.E. Road, Ravigrain, Te!ibandlia, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Througli: Managing Director Raipur fr^ aT^- ^ {^,.1<J.) 5. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Eva Ki'isiii Vikas Nigain Liiaited "Beej Bhawan" G.E. Road, Ravisram, Telibandha, Raipin-, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6. Ths Madhva Pradesh State Aaro Development Corp. Ltd. (M.P, Govt. Undert.aking) "Panchanan", 3 FIoor Malviya Nagar, Bhopal M.P. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTJ.CLE 226(C) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Smsle Bench : Hort'Ue justice Shri Satisli K. Aaiuliotri, Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Beriwai, Standmg Counsei for fhe respondent No. 1. S!iri Satish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Sliri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No. 4 and 5. (Passed on 14th day of June, 2007) 1. The petitioner is Deputy Manager (Accounts). He was working as Deputy Manaeer. M.P. State Asro Development Corporation Ltd. Bhopal, as it then was, before creation ofthe State ofChhattisgarh on 01.11.2000. ITie dispute arose with regard to the allocation ofthe services ofthe petitioaer between the present State of Madhya Pradesh aad the State of Chhattisgarh. This Court, by order dated 25.08,2006 in W.P.(S) No. 4128 of 2006. after havine observed that the respondent no. 1, Secretary, Ministrv ofPersonnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi to pass appropriate order resarding issuance of fhe final allocation list at the eariiest in accordanee with law, disposed ofthe petition. The then leamed counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, Shri Bhishma Kinger, submitted that the Union of India would nass final order within three months time pursuant to the observations made by this Court in the order dated 25.08.2006. 2. The Govemnient oflndia, Ministry ofHome Aftairs, vide its letter dated 15 Jan. 2007 (Aimexure P/4) under the prowsions of Section 60 ofthe M.P. Reorgamzation Act, allocated the services of the petitioner to the State ofChhattisgarh. 3. Shri Tamaskar, leamed counsel appearing fbr fhe petitioner submits that despite final order passed by the Govemment oflndia, the respondent no. 4 and 5 are not permitting fhe petitioner tojoin the office in CUhattisgarh. Leamed counsel further submits that the Govemment of Chhattisgarh Aericulture Department, by its order no. 1199/B. 15/19/2005/14-2 dated 28.03.2007, directed the Managmg Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam, to permit the petitioner to join the oflice of Deputy General Manager (Accounts). ; 4. Shri Prakash Tiwari, leamed counsel appearins for the respondent No. 4 and 5 submits that the petitioner could not be pennitted to join the office as no relieving order has been passed bv the respondent no. 6. 5, L<amed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never joined the oftice of the respondent No. 6 even after fhe petitioner was relieved from the services ofthe respondent No. 4 and 5. In view ofthat, the petitioner be permitted to join fhe office ofthe respondent No. 4 and 5 with iiimiediate effect. 6. Be that as it may. Since the final order of allocation has been passed by the Govemment of India, allocatms the services of the petitioner to the State ofChhattissarh, the respondent no. 4 and 5 are bound to accept the service of the petitioner on the same capacity i.e. Deputy General Manager (Accousts'). In view ofthat, the respondent no. 6 is directed to pass relieving order within a period of one week, if any. Thereatter, tlie respondent No. 4 aad 5 shall e've posting order to the petitioner within a period ofone week. 7. In view oftlie foreeoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost. Sd/- SatishK-Agni Judge Asot