.an?^ tffs.sl IN THB HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR 2--3(^ W.P (S) N0. /2oi 1 6tng1»BencB PETITIONER A- A< J^r,^- /^^r>" .•''* -**'*- ..•••^^Pe^DENTS 1] //" ^^^" M^';^' . <(L^^""" : ...-•'^y y 1: 3] o^ 4] Kamlakar Mahadev Rao Patil, S/o. Shri Mahadev Rao Patil, aged about 56 years, R/o. E-1, Irrigation Colony, D.C. Road, Anibikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State Qf Chhattisgarh, Through: Principal Secretary, Water ResQurces Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) , Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.) R.P. Agrawal, Assistant Engineer, at present holding Assistant Engineer /Sub-Divisional OfGcer, Water Resources Sub-Divisibn No.l, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Shyam Bamai Project Circle, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) . : . rRIT PETITION UNDERART!CLE^226 OF THBCONSTITUTION OFINDIA i E f! fE;Ii T?s s HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Q) N0. 2919 of 2011 n PETITIONER Kamlakar Mahadev Rao Patil RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others 1^: M Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on ...2?..day ofAugust, 201 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge G ^;> PETITiONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2919 of 2011 Kamlakar Mahadev Rao Patil /'2-2 RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Writ Petition Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India Present:- Shri Sunil Otwani with Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri P.K.C.Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhusan, Advocate for the respondent No.3. l^ (Delivered on .<<;./. dayofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred as Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division (for short "W.R.D".) No.1, Ambikapur to Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur on the same post and the respondent No.3 was transferred as Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division No.1, Ambikapurto the post of In-charge Executive Engineer, W.R.D. No.1 Ambikapur. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, is that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer on 26.10.2006 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, he was transferred to Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur, as is evident from the order dated 12.04.2010 (Annexure P-3). Then, by order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was transferred from Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur to W.R.D. No.1,Ambikapur. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the new place of posting on 01.03.2011. Thereafter, the transfer order dated 28.02.2011 was cancelled by order dated 23.04.2011 (Annexure P-5), whereunder, the respondent No.3 was posted as In-charge Executive Engineer, and the petitioner was reposted back at Shyam Barnai CanalDivision, Ambikapur. N 9. 3 Ambikapur. The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer at Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur and he was given an additional charge of the Executive Engineer, W.R.D.No.1, Ambikapur. On the appointment of the respondent No.3, the charge of W.R.D.No.1, Ambikapur of the petitioner was withdrawn and, as such, there was no infirmity or illegality in the order. Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents would submit that by order dated 23.04.2011, the respondent No.3 was transferred from Water Resources Sub Division No.1, Ambikapur to the same Division with financial and administrative powers. The petitioner was given additional charge ofW.R.D. No.1, Ambikapur, on temporary basis, in view of exigency, which arose on account of superannuation of Mr. A.K.Gaur on 31.12.2010. Thereafter, the additional chargewas withdrawn and the respondent No.3, being the senior most Sub Divisional Officer, was posted as Incharge Executive Engineer. The contention of Shri Otwani is that the substantive post of the respondent No.3 is Sub Divisional Officer and the petitioner is holding substantive post of Executive Engineer and, as such, ifthere was any administrative exigency the respondent No.3 ought to have been transferred. The petitioner, who holds the substantive post of Executive Engineer, could not have been transferred. This issue is not relevant in this case, as the petitioner has been transferred on his own substantive post. On perusal of the order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-4), it does not appear that the petitioner while working as Executive Engineer, Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur was given additional cfiarge of W.R.D. No.1, Ambikapur, as the order clearly reads that the petitioner was transferred from Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur and posted as Executive Engineer, W.R.D.No.1, Ambikapur. The subsequent order datea' 23.04.2011 (Annexure P- 5), wherein, it was observed that the order dated 28.02.2011 was 2 /^ 3. Being aggrieved, the writ petition was pr&ferred to this Court being W.P.(S) No. 2210/2011. This Court after having found that the order dated 23.04.2011 was passed after transfer order dated 28.02.2011 was complied with, quashed the order dated 23.04.2011, on 27.04.2011 (Annexure P-6). However, liberty was reserved to the respondent/employer to pass a fresh order, if so advised, in public interest and administrative exigency. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed transferring the petitioner again to Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur. 4. Shri Otwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the above stated acts of the authorities clearly indicate that there was a malafide exercise of power and it was attempted through out to accommodate the respondent No.3 who was working as Sub Divisional Officer at W.R.D.No.1, Ambikapur by posting him as In- charge Executive Engineer. It is further contended that there was no administrative exigency or public interest, as the transfer order dated 23.04.2011 was quashed, the impugned order was passed to accommodate the respondent No.3 and posted as In-charge Executive Engineer in W.R.D. No.1, Ambikapur. 5. On the other hand, Shri Tiwari, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that there was no malafide exercise of power. The petitioner has not been upgraded. He has been posted as In-charge Executive Engineer. This Court has granted liberty to the State authorities to pass order in administrative exigency and, as such, the impugned order was passed in administrative exigency. The posting of the petitioner at W.R.D.No.1, Ambikapur was an additional charge, as he was initially posted in Shyam Barnai Canal . Bivisional, Ambikapur. Thus, there was no malafide exercise of power. 6. It is evident from the fact that the petitioner has filed an affidavit before the District Judge in one of the case stating that he was working as Executive Engineer, Shyam Barnai Canal Division, /^ 11 canceled and the petitioner was reposted as Executive Engineer at Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur, was challenged in this CourtinW.P.(S) No.2210/2011. The said order dated 23.04.2011 was quashed by this Court, on 27.04.2011 (Annexure P-6). Thus, the order dated 28.02.201, whereunder, the petitioner was transferred and posted at W.R.D.No.1, Ambikapur was affirmed. The impugned order dated 26.05.2011 reiterates the order dated 23.04.2011 in its content, which have been quashed by this Court. Thus, it appears that the liberty granted to the State authorities to pass a fresh order, keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, has been misused to overrule the order dated 27.04.2011 passed by this Court. An attempt was made throughout to post the respondent No.3 as In-charge, Executive Engineer at W.R.D.No.1, Ambikapur. Once the order was quashed by this Court, the State authorities should not have passed the same order, posting the petitioner at Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur. The entire exercise smacks malice on the part of the respondent authorities. The impugned order also appears to be an attempt on the part of the State authorities to overreach and overrule the judicial order by passing the impugned order, misusing the liberty reserved to the State authorities. Thus, it cannot be held that the impugned order was passed on administrative exigency or in public interest. If the intention of the authorities was clear, the petitioner could have been posted elsewhere and not reposting again at Shyam Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur, which appears to be an ulterior motive to frustrate the benefit granted to the petitioner earlier in the petition, whereunder, the orderdated 23.04.2011 was challenged. Thus, the impugned order dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs.,—— ashok Sd/- ish K. Agni Judge