C S\y3 ^ ^ Sl^dte ®€fj!'slflis -N? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHTTISGARH, AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^\^\ OF 2008 PETITIONER ^ ^ ^^ ^•^ "..•••- ^^•/ <^>/ ^y^ ^sy^y •q^~ .;-•'' .^ RESPONDENTS ^ ^A^'^ '^ : ^ K. P. CHOUKSE, AGED - 54 YEARS, / SON OF SHRI MATHURA PRASAD WORKING AS - SUB - ENGINEER, AT - JANPAD PANCHAYAT, PANDARIYA, DISTRICT - KABEERDHAM (C. G.) R/0 PANDARIYA, DISTRICT - KABEERDHAM (C. G.) VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MANTRALAYA, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR. 2. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OFWATER RESOURCES, MANTRALAYA D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR (LAND RECORDS) y DISTRICT - DURG (C. G.) 3. CHHATTISGARH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH - THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CIVIL LINES, RAIPURC. G. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PRADHAN MANTRI GRAM SADAK YOJANA, OFFICE OFTHE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, CHHATTISGARH, RAIPUR ^^^^^. c>) Wr.it Petition Under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India AF^ 1'^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7181 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS K.P. Choukse. VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ALONGWITH W.P.(S) No. 4994/2007,6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165/2008,164/2009,306/2009, 352/2009,604/2009,670/2009,701/2009,2418/2009, 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 and 4949/2009. WRIT PETITION LTNDER ARTICLE8 226 OF THE CONSTITLTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri. J. Present: Shi'l R.K.Kesharwani, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Shri P.P.Sahu, Ms, Sharmila Singhai with Shi'i Sanjay Agi'awal, Shri M.V.Paranjpe, Ms. Morisha Chattri on behatfofShri Y.C.Sharma, 81m Chasidresh Slirivastava, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Sliri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Govermiient Advocate for the State. ORDER(QRAL) (Passed ofi 09th day of December, 2009) 1. The present batch of petitions viz. W.P.(8) No. 7181/2008, 4994/2007, 6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165/2008, 164/2009, 306/2009, 352/2009, 604/2009, 670/2009, 701/2009, 2418/2009, 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009 4455/2009 and 4949/2009 involve a comnion question of lavv asto vvhether the petitioners, who are deputationists in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department and posted in Rural Engineering Services, may be transfen-ed to Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Autliority and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, and as such, all these petitions are being disposed ofby a conimon order. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were originally appointed in the Water Resources Department and Irrigation Department on the post of Sub Engineer. The petitioners were sent on deputation to tlie Pairal Engineering Sei-vices of Panchayat and Rural Development Department. •••>•'.., ^^^K. (-'£\ /^^. ^ Ainit Thereafter, tlie petitione.rs cositinued in the said department without there being any absoiption or repatriation to their respective parent department. 3. In the meantime, by the inipu^ied orders dated 01.10.2008 [Annexniire P/l to W.P.(S) Nos. 7181/2008, 6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165/2008, 164/2009, 306/2009, 352/2009, 604/2009, 670/2009, 701/2009 & 2418/2009], 17.7.2007 [Annexure P/4 to W.P.(8) No. 4994/2007] and 29.06.2009 [Ainexure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 & 4949/2009], the petitioners, without their coasent, have been transfen'ed to Chliattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority a?id Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, which according to the petitioners^are iiot part of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Thus, the impugned transfer orders are m question in this batch ofpetitions. 4. SM Y.S.ThAur, leamed Deputy Govenmient Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits, on instructions, that admittedly, the petitioners were posted cn deputation in the Rural Engisieering Sendces of the Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Now the State Govermiient has decided to repatriate the petitioners to their respective parent departments. Sliii Thakur farther submits that till the tlnal order of repatriation of the petitioners to their parent department is passed, the aforestated impugned transfer orders shall not be given effect to. 5. At this juncture, leamed counsel appearmg for the respective petitioners submit that m the light ofclear and categorical submission made by leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, nothing survives in tlie present writ petitions for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge