"r •i^ur^ AT ^PPI^[^L_^^ Pet'tioner RESPONDENTS: Present' Writ Appea! No.259 of 201 O Bharat Ram Dhruw, about 4; years, S/o Shri Sonuram Dhruw, Superintendent, Lana Rurai Division, CoiiectorsS! Campus, Bilaspur (CG) ersus state of Chhattisaarh, Throuah the .^jSf^r^t^rv- •^/i 'wi.a.i y, Ai Prabandhan Vibhag, Shawan, Raipur (CG) 7 3. & commissioner. ChhattisQam, Raipur (CG) Land r*'^,^^^', ^iajiUii! D.K.. Record, rsi"., ~he Coliector (Land Record Branch), Biiaspur (CG) Brijnath Sai, Superintendent Land Record, Ralpur, District Raipur (CG'i ('wronaly mentioned i" Writ Petition as Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (CG)) Shri Prateek Sharrna, counsel forthe sppeiiant. Shri G.D. Waswani, 'Govt. Advocate for the Stati Oivislon Bench; Hon'bte Shrs Dhirendra Mishn Hon'bie Shri (11-8-2010) The appeliant, who is working as Office Superintendent, Land Records, Rurai Division, Coiiectorate, Bilaspur, questioned the vaijdity of the order dated 5I" July, 2010 whersby he has bsen attached to the offics of the Land Records, Korba for a period of one year by the Commissioner, Land Recorcis, Raipur. 2. Dismlssing the petition, iearned Single Judge held that by the impugned order 40 empioyees including the petitioner of different cadres in the State have been attached to the offlce of Land Records, Korba and Bilaspur for speclfic purposes of measurement of iand, its survey a"d for preparation of torn maps etc. for a period of one year. Thus, It is not the case oftransfer ofthe Detitloner. It has been further observed that under admlnlstrative exigencies for completing a particular public work at a particuiar pisce, the authoritiss are required to take steps to get the work done by attachmsnt of rsquired number of oersons to comoiete the work within time frame and no ma!ai?!Qe was attributed to the Governmsnt. Ths petitioner has not piaced any materiai to demonstrate that attachment order ofthe Detitioner at Korba has been passed for adjustment of respondent No.4. 3 Shri Prateek Sharma, iearned counset appearing for the appeliant, vehemently argued that where there is aiiegation of malafide egainst ths respondents, the same cannot be rejected w'thout requlring the resDondents to file counter affidavit in rebutta!. -j.-..,. ... .,^ Reiiance is piaced in the matter of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of and others {AiR 1995 SUPREME COURT 423}, wes aiso argued that where transfer order is bssed on irrelevant ground or the same is passed by way of, or in iieu of )unishmsnt, the same may be set aside being whoily ii'egal. . Rellance is placed in the matter of Somesh Tlwarl Vs. Union of Jndia others {(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592}. /I 1-1 4 heara learnea counsei TorTne parties. ''- .^•'•^:'."'',_. "! <1^-"" i'f-'y vv^ In the instant case, the appellant and 40 other empioyees of the State workina as Suoerintendsnt, Land Rscords/Assistant SuDerintendent Land Records and Revenue inspectors have been sttached for specific purpose for one yea' in BHaspur and Korba d'stricts. Considering the above fact, the writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order. The ratio of law iaid down by the Supreme Court In the above cited judgments have no appiication in the facts o* tha sresent case and the Detitlon has been "ahtly dismissed ReeDina in visw the settled principles that the Stste end its authorities are at iiberty to utllize the services of iis emp!oyees sccording'to thelr adm'nistretive exlgencies to comp'ete a particuiar work within a time frame and no malafldes can be attributed to the State. We do not find anv substance !n this writ aDDea', the same deserves to be snd is accordingly dismissed !n limine. _—— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge !arv£ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge