gg 4w}; 1mm}? W’bw BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P (5) No. £Z~OH 1201 PETITIONER :/ Lobhan Sai Sarthi, S/o. Shri Dukalu Ram Sarthi, aged about 34 years, Rural Agricultural Extension Officer, Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.), R/o. Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS /:1 The State of Chhattlsgarh Through the' Secretary, Department of Agrrculture D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Director; Department of Agricuiture, Sub-Divisionai Officer (Agricuiture), Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) /6. Senior Agriculture Deveiopment Officer, ' Laiiunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ' RESPONDENT€ ~ Directorate, Raipur (C.G.) /8. Joint Director of Agriculture, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) «4 / Deputy Director of Agricuiture near Coliectorate Raigarh (C G) HIH CURT F CATT£SA A B§ASPU ; WRIT PETiTmN (S) No. 804 of 2011 PETmONER : Lobhan Sai Sarthi VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS The State of Chhatiisgarh & Others. RIT PETRTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIO SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aqnihotri, J. Present: Shri A.K. Prasaci, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. on 10‘“ d 01 1 (Passed ay of February, 2 )» ui i the s b r t 963.2010 'Learned conse appearing for the petitioner submts that petiiionef was engaged in censu work y orde daeo‘ 2. (Annexure Pf2) a Supervisor unr i‘ne visians f su sectéon 4) Secrion 4 f the Censu Ac 1948 (37 I98. hereft: y er ae 15.07010 nnexure PI he eitio a rafer from lung Jashpu. ui o whte mployee gaged in censu may be transfered before ompleion of census work, came up nto consideraton before this Corr in Chandnka Praise Sinha v. Safe of Chhatrisgama aiongwitn o Connted matter. This rt, having considere an the aspecis of te tter held thai an mployee ngaed In censu not rsurbe prir its copieiio. Accordingy, the writ ptiiion filed by seera el ale. r Prad sumits tha he issu involved ein s quarey oved y e ecisio rendered by this Court in the abo stated cses Shri Sridhar, ieard anel Lawye appearing for ihe tate umit at there is no dispute wit regard to th above stated subssin and s such te writ petition may be disposed of accordingly. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, he impuge rdr daed 15.07.2610 (Annexure PM) in respect of the titioner, is q Snc h impUgned rer as passed on 15.0?201, te ettionr migh he relevd rng is prod. th petitioner a not bee relieve. the c o te peitioner is squarely re t or passed by this ourt n Kailas rad Mehar. a of Chatisrh Others? Accordingi, he wrt petition i disposed . er ‘s Sd/-' Satish K. Agnii Judge s de pro o b ( of o § t. of 4) Taer b ord dtd 2 (A /L t ptner ws tnsred Laia to r The qeeton asr ehr an e en s r ct i i u ' d f ther ec s Cou d h ma e eg s may be dtd o Io mn i e vl mpoyees was lowd Shi sa b t t e hre i sl cre b th dn ve a. ne P r S sbs th h e mio a . h t nd oe t pe uashed. ie te od w 0 h pie t av been ie dui th ei If e hs n d ase f h t coved by he der C i h Pas v Stre htga & ‘W.Pi(S‘) No. 3444:2010, decided on 05.10.2010 2 W.P.(S) No. 219/2011 decided on 17.01.2011 G O O HHGRH T LR W N OF INDIA ORDER (QRALI y t i s of No ord emu GOs‘ hotr