SINGLE BENCH (N THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. UOS~£12009 ^* ^^-"- ^-"' IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ; AND IN THE MATTER OF CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1965; AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER DATED 23.07.2009 PASSED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH, RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH AND BETWEEN : PETITIONER K. C. Saroj, son of Shri Ram Kishore, Aged about 53 years, Joint Director, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi, presently posted on deputation as Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^1. Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry of Defense, Government of India, South Block, New Delhi 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi ,3. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Secretary, Department of General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Amrito Das, Advocate ?5. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS '3'^r «MI<I|<-|^, ^Tl1y^|(o, [®tdiylj,< NINdl <kN8«b•••••••'/-<•••--•—•"•••-•--y--^ ^OO 3T^?T '<7^^ (^f^^T) ^T^I'^Tf^hF ^^ 3P|T^T sf)^i^ '^CTW^ft^ ^lti? T 03.08.2009 •r-^wg^9^^»» i^i ^ Shri Amrito Das, counsel for t] Shri Kasif Shakeel, counsel foi Shri Arvind Dubey, P.L. for thc ^Prf^pN ^TR^ff "^ "fe^ l^t^K ^^ifim^Ti^i -DtWAKBR- ^e petitioner. respondent No. 1 & 2. State/resp, No. 3,4 3s 5. Challenge in the present ^etition is to the order dated 23.7.2009 passed by respondent N<|).1 by which the petitioner has been repatriated tb his parent depart|nent. Contention of counsel for the |)etitioner is that after completion of the original tenure of the petitio|'ier?s deputation^ the same was extended and now the extended ten^re would expire in the month of October 2009. He submits that firstll/ been passed ending the deputation ojl all it is to be passed then at best it c4n be after October 2009. On the other hand c^unsel fc|r respondent No. 1 85 2 submits that the deputation period of the pe|:itioner has already expired and he has no legal right to continue in hji Contention of counsel for th4 r the order impugned could have the petitioner and secondly if at ^s present place of posting. ; State is that let the petitioner iriake a representation to the autljiority concemed and the aame would be decided in accordance withl Be that as it may, the petition] law. is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representati^n before respondent No.3 within a period of ten days from the date ofl receipt of the copy of this order, the same would be decided within 4 period of three weeks from the date of Its receipt. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge + ^