Him-I COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH; BILASPUR Writ Petifion No.64?7 of 20% Dr. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, aged about 41 years, Sm. !ate Shri Rampati Shukla, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Patthalgaon Dist. Jashpur (CG), résident of {image Dhakhara, Post — Deogaon, Tahsil — Raipur Karkarchu§iyan, Dist. Rewa (MP). Petitioner Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.Se Bhawan, Raipur, CG. 2) The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. 3) The Collector, lJaehpur, Dist.’Jashpur, CG. ‘’KN‘ ;~’/,«, Respondents (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari‘eto or direction/order or in the like nature etc.) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri .1 Shri Rajesh Pandey counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushi! Dubey, Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3/State. ORAL o R D E R (Passed on 29TH April, 2007) 1, in the present petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to send back him from Tribal Deveiopment Department to Panchayat and Rural Development Department, 2. The respondents/State in its retum dated 16-3—2007 has categorioatiy stated that the deputation of the petitioner was revoked and he has been sent back to his parent department i.e., Panchayat and Rural Development Department. v \fzr 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in View of the statement made by the respondentslstate in its retum, submits that so far as prayer 7.2 is concerned, he is satisfied and nothing survives. 4. W‘rth regard to prayer 7.1, wherein the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to give the posting order with work and regular saiary to him along with back wages 'With interest is concerned, teamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that in view of the stand of the State/respondents that the petitioner has been sent back to the parent department i.e., Panchayat and Rurai Deveiopment Department, there is no difficuity in giving him the posting order and the payments of arrears of his salary.’ Thus, second prayer also does not survive. 5. Accordingly, respondents are directed to pass appropriate posting order with payment of salary which has not been paid may be on account of certain technicalities. 6i With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is disposed of. / Sd/- a Satish K. Agnihotn Judge i i i i