/ t7 (1) 7/ N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHTTISGARHI AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(S)N0. (gaé OF 2009 PETITIONER /’ \ v P. MKRA, AGED 47; YEARS SON OF SHRI PIYUSH LAKARA, WORKING As — SUB — ENGINEER, AT — JANPAD PANCHAYAT, GURUR, 1 DISTRICTz— DURG (c. G.) R/o GURu'R, DISTRICT — DURG (c. G.) VERSUS ./1. RESPONDENTS STATE 9E CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH — THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT MANTRALAYA D K S BHAWAN RAIPUR /2. STATE OE CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH — THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OE WATER RESOURCES, MANTRALAYA D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR (LAND RECORDS) DISTRICT - DURG (c. G.) /3. CHHATTISGARH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ‘THROUGH - THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR (C. G.) J’ Writ Petition Under Article — 226 of the Constitution of India 1. )Particulars of the petitioner(s) \ A‘s ‘above in cause titi‘e. ‘ l 2. \P'artlculars of the respondent(s) I AS above In cause tltle WNW , I : M4? g9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH Al BILASPUR WRIT PETYHON gS) No. 7181 of 2098 PETITIONER : KP. Choukse. VERSUS $ RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & 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. WRn‘ PETI'HON UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' B: Hon’me Shri Satish K. mu-I. J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Shri P.P.Sahu, Ms. Shannila Siaghai with Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Shri M.V.Paranjpe, Ms. Morisha Chattri on behalf of Shri Y.C.Sharma, Shli Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) ‘ (Passed on 09 day of December, 2009) The present batch of petitions viz. W.P.(S) 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 common question of law asto Whether the petitioners, who are deputationists in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department and posted in Rural Engineering Services, may be transferred to Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, and as such, all these petitions are being disposedof by a‘common order.' 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 the Rural . ’l', I - Engineering Services of Panchéyat and Rural Development Department. J \\ S A { _ / 1 Tharaa‘jiar, the pétitioners caminued i‘n tlw Said departmem “\V’i‘thm‘u mere * v being any absorption 01* repairiation to their réspectivs parent department. 3. In the meantime, by the impugned orders dated ()1. 10.2008 [Annexure P/l to W.P.(S) Nos. 71813008, 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.(S) No. 4994/2007] and 29.06.2009 [Almexure P/l to W.P.(S) N0. 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 & 4949/2009], the petitioners, without their consent, have been transferred to Chhattisgarh Rura1 Road Development Authority and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak, Yojana, which according to the petitioners‘are not part of the Panehayat and Rural Development Department. Thus, the impugned transfer orders are in question in this batch of petitions. 4. Shri Y.S.Thakur, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits, on instructions, that admittedly, the petitioners were posted on deputation in the Rural Engineering Services of the Panehayat & Rural Development Department. Now the State Government has decided to repatriate the petitioners to their respective parent departments. Shri Thakur further submits that till the final order of repatriation of the petitioners to their parent depaxtment is passed, the aforestated impugted transfer orders shall not be given effect to. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submit that in the light of clear and categorical submission made by learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, nothing survives in the. present writ petitions for adjudication. . 6. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. ’1 iv I i tr 5d]. j i V Satish K.Agnihotri 1 p ‘ Judge Amit