HKGH WRIT COURT PETlTlQN OF CHHATTISGARH g3) NQ.4453 OF 2 BILASPUR 2010 r Sharma PETITIONER ' Aiay Versus Kuma State of Chhatt'tsgarh & Others of the Conskitution of \ndia) der h '. Hon’ble Artide 226 Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition un Single Benc Advocates f0r the te and Shri A.V. Present :— a Surana, d Shri Ashish overnment Advoo the respon ORDER gORAL) fJanuary, 201 1) Shri P.S. Koshy arm petitioner. Shr‘l Sushi Sridhar, Panel Lawyer tor the Shri Varun Sharma, this 27‘ day o rties. State. Advocate for t Dubey, G dent No.5. (Passed on Heard learned counset for the pa Challenge in this petition passed is to the order dated 15 No.2 maintaining the eartier tran was transfer etitioner /07l2010 (Annexure PH) sfer order dated red from by the respondent PI5) whereby the p 06/08/2009 (Annexure Bijapur to Baloda. 3. The facts, in nuts the petitioner. are that the petitioner Municipal Council, Baloda, District— n the year 1984 after ),the y order dated 27I02I2008 l Officer, (Annexure Nagar Panchayat, PIZ peti pur and for various the order dated and was transferred ed o with respect to the the year 1982 and was regularized i Chief Mumcipa pointed as Charge—Officer tor ner was posted in—c tioner was also ap hell, as projected by d as Moharrir at was initially appointe Bilaspur in completing probation period. B harge petitio Biiapur. Nagar Pan Census 2011 for the Census 2011. Sheel Ch e, C.M.O. Biiapur and no order was receiv activities with Thereafter, the chayat, Biia The petitioner received n deputation basis respect to the 29/06/2009 whereby one as ln-charg the petitioner. The petitioner challenge posting of d the said order i f Chhattisgarh & 0th No.3393l2009 (Ajay th Kumar a direction to the p also directed to decide the repre ed 26/06/2009 would not be given effect charge C.l\Il.O. Nagar passe Panchayat, Biiap t, Baloda without deciding the petitioner to make a representation sentation within Sharma v. State o etitioner d, whereby the ur to ln— Nagar Panchaya was disposed of wi and respondent N three weeks an 0.2 was d till then the order dat to. On the contrary, the order dated 06/08/2009 was titioner. Against the said transfer order, the rwas transferred from eotor, petitions Assistant Revenue lnsp Irepresentation of the pe i w? again approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4598/2009 (Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) which was also disposed of by this Court on 10/02/2010 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter, by order dated 15/07/2010 (Annexure P/1) the respondent authorities passed the transfer order without modification of the order dated 06/08/2009 (Annexure P/5). Thus, this petition. 5. This Court, after hearing ail the counsel for the parties reserved Iiberty to the State authorities to pass appropriate order of transfer in View of public interest and administrative exigency holding clearly that the impuned order dated 06/08/2009 (Annexure P/5) shall not be complied with. This court by order dated 12/08/2010 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of placement of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 15/07/2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2, after having noticed the order dated 10/02/2010 (Annexure P/6) passed in W.P.(S) No.4598/2010 (Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) wherein it was directed not to comply with the earlier order dated 06/08/2009 (Annexure P/5), amounts to overreaching the order of this Court as it was directed that the transfer order dated 06/08/2009 shall remain as it is. The impugned order dated 15/07/2010 (Annexure P/1). is a classical case of overreaching or overriding the order dated 10/02/2010 (AnneXure P/6) passed by this Court. Action on the part of the Under Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Urban Administration and Development Department, is highly deprecated, as he has attempted to set aside the order dated 10/02/2010 (Annexure P/6) by directing that the order dated 06/08/2009 (Annexure P/5) shall remain as it is. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the contempt petition being 237/2010 is already pending consideration. Thus, l do not express any opinion on this issue. 9. Having regard to the facts situation of the case as aforestated, the impugned order dated 15/07/2010 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with cost 'quantified to be Rs.5,000/- payable to the petitioner. The amount of cost may be recovered from the respondent No.2. Sd/- Satish K; Agnihotri Judge Arun g