.^ \-r c^7 \^^i SingSeBench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) No. ^^c\^ /2009 PETITIONER 1. Bharat Kumar Lahre, S/o. Shri K.D^^C .<^/ -y A^V" ^e" ./) ^•\^v ^- ^•^'/ ^y aged about 27 years, Working as - Sub Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Janpad Panchayat, (Office of Chief Executive Officer) Division Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh through : Secretary, Department of Panchayat and rural development D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /' 2) The Additional Secretary, ^ Department of Panchayat and rural Development, Dau Kalyan y- Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3) Chhattisgarh Rural Development Authority through: Chief Executive Officer, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) <•- 4) Superintendent Engineer, ^^<* Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna Office of Vikas Ayukta, ^ Raipur (C.G.) 1^:^ 5) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ ^^ 1 '^ ^. ^•^ KS? ^:<^ ^Sfe> \\ 1 .§ 1 €3- ft. ^ . ^ ' ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^? ^. N ^ ^ a ^ ^ g i j Is! t^ 'f^ u €'r ^ Is" -^< hmmm o's^^.^fe^ ^ B ^^, AP^ HIGtI COURT;' OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WRIT PETmON (8) No. 7181 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS K.P.Choukse. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. .^LONGWTTH W.P.(8) 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. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLES226 OF THE CONSTnTjnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aamhotri. J. Present: Sto'i R.K.Kesharwani, Shri SandeepDubey, Stori P.P.Sahu, Ms. Shannila Singhai with Slm Sanjay Agrawal, Slii'i M.V.Paranjpe, Ms. Morisha Chattri on behalfofShri Y.C.Sharma; Shri Chandresh Sluivastava, Advocates fortlie respective petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Goveniment Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 09th d&y of Deeember, 2009) 1. 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/i2009, 670/2009, 701/2009, 2418/2009, 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009 4455/2009 and 4949/2009 involve a comnion question oflaw asto whether tlie petitioners, who are deputationists in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department and posted in Rural Engineering Services, may be traiisferred to Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Autliority and Pradlian Mantri Gi-ana Sadak Yojna, and as such, all these petitions are being disposed ofby a coniinon order. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were origmally appointed in the Water Resources Department and Irrigation Departnient on the post of Sub Engmeer. The petitioners were sent on deputation to Ae Rural Engiiieering Services of Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Ajrni Therealter, tlie petitioners coiitiiiued ie tlie said departiiieiit.witlioui There being any absorption or repatriation to their respective parent department. 3. In the meantime, by the impugned orders dated 01.10.2008 [Annexure P/l to W.P.(8) Nos. 7181/2008, 6415/2008, 6695/2008, 7165/2008, 164/2009, 306/2009, 352/2009, 604/2009, 670/2009, 701/2009 & 2418/2009], 17.7.2007 [Aimexure P/4 to W.P.(S) No. 4994/2007] and 29.06.2009 [^mexure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 3894/2009, 3895/2009, 3896/2009, 4455/2009 & 4949/2009], tlie petitioners. without llieir consent, have been transfen'ed to Cliliattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority and Pradhan Mantri Graiii SadakYojana, which according to the petitioners m'e not part of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Thus, the impugned transfer orders are in question in this batch ofpetitions. 4. Slm Y.S.Thakm', leamed Deputy Goveninient Advocate appearmg for the State/respondents submits- on mstmctions, that admittedly, the petitioiiers were posted on deputation in the Rural Engineering Services of the Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Now the State Govemnient has decided to repatriate the petitioners to their respective parent departments. Sliri Thakur fliillier submits that till tlie final order of repatriation of the petitioners to their parent department is passed, the afbrestated impugned transfer orders shall not be given eifect to. 5. At this juncture, leamed counsel appearmg for the respective petitioners submit that in the light ofclear and categorical submission made by lem'ned Deputy x4idvocate General appearing for the State, nothing sur^'ives in the present writ petitions for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge