fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 796 OF 2003 Petitioner Som Dutt Namdeo, S/o Shri R.D. Namdev, aged about 48 years, Occupation-Go^. Service, presently posted as Sub Engineer, Department ofWater Resources, Sub. Divn. Pendra Road, Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Resoondents Versus 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Engineer-in-chief, Water Resources Department, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) Sub Divisional OfRcer, Water Resources Sub Division, Pendra Road (Marwahi), Distt. Bilaspur (CG) S^iAshish Shrivastava, leamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, leamed Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (2nd February, 2006) The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer on 10.08.1980 m the Water Resources Department by order dated 11.2.2003. Services ofthe petitioner were transferred from Water Resources Department to Panchayat and Rural Development Department without his consent. The impugned order amounts to order ofdeputation fromhis Parent Department i.e. Water Resources Department to other Department i.e. Panchayat and Rural Development Department. This order was passed without taking consent of the petitioner as well as that of his Parent Department. 2. Leamed counsel for the respondents submits that this order was passed only for a temporary period as there was shortage in Panchayat and Rural Development Department and surplus stafif in Water Resources Department. Be that as it may, the services of an employee camiot be transferred to any other Department without consent of the concemed employee. The petitioner was appomted in Water Resources Department and his services have been transferred to Panchayat and Rural Development which on the face of it, is illegal as the same has been done without consent ofthe petitioner. Tlus Court by order dated 20.5.2002 has stayed ^ ^^ -z- /-s^) the impugned order of transfer by virtue of the said order by which the petitioner contmued to work m his Parent Department till date. 3. In view of the mtermi order passed by this Court and even otherwise the order appears to be prima-facie illegal, this petition deserves to be allowed. In case any other order is passed, the petitioner reserves liberty to challenge the same, ifso advised. Priya 4. For the reasons stated above, order dated 11.2.2003 (Annexure P-9) in respect of the petitioner is quashed and the petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge