($3 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR , «5/ v / w.p.No. ,.L%é$//2003. /v § Sltaram son of Shri Mangulal, aged y about 32 years, employed as Trade Constable Medical (Ward Boy) No. 822, resident of Seventh Battalion Special Armed Force (S.A.F.) Bhilai, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). PETITIONER VERSUS “‘ RESPONDEIgIr's 1. Union of India, through : Secretary Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, State Reorganization Cell, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market New Delhi. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretary, Department of Home ffairs, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). State of Madhya Pradesh, through : the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralay Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesht The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur {Chhattisgarh). The Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (M.P.) he State Reorganization Commission (Lohani Commission) through :' the Commissioner Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)‘. Shri Ronha‘Ram, Trade Constabe Medial (Ward Boy), No. 274, 5th Batallion, S.A.F. Muraina (Madhya Pradesh). ‘L A T / ‘ l @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wn't Pe11'tion No. 1865 of 2003 Petitioner Sitaram Versus Respondents Union of India 8n others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhotn' J.) Shri Manoj Jayaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Fouzia Mirza; Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No. 1. Shn' N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 2 85 4. Shri S. S. Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 and 5. o R D E R (Oral) (Passed on this 16th day of March, 2O 10) Heard. The petitioner, by the present petition, nled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a relief “to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, certioran' or of any other appropriate nature directing to respondents no. l to 6 tor ' immediately allocate the petitioner to the state of M.P. in place of the respondent no.7 and his request of allocation on the basis of mutual consent with respondent no.7 may be allowed”. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner is working as Trade Constable, Medical (Ward Boy) No. 822 at 7th Battalion, S.A.F., Bhilai, District - Durg. The home district of the petitioner is Morena (Madhya Pradesh). The respondent No.7 is working as < w—’l/ S.A.F. Morena (Madhya Pxadesh), Whose home district is Jashpur (Chhattisgarb) . In spite of submitting option for allocation in the respective States by the pefiu'oner as well as the respondent No.7, when they were not allocated to the State of their choice, the petitioner submitted an application on 1.3.2001 (Annexure P/ 1) for mutual transfer, which was foxwanied on 7.4.2001 (Annexure P/2). Subsequently, the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 jointly submitted an application on 2.5.2001 (Annexme P/ 4). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the State of Madhya Pradesh was bifurcated and new State of Chha’ttisgarh was created w.e.f. 1.11.2000. At the time when option was called, the petitioner opted for the State of Madhya Pradesh, as his home district - Morena is in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In spite of the option, the petitioner was not allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter the petitioner made a request for his mutual transfer with the respondent No.7. As the respondent] State of Chhattisgarh declined to give concurrence, the petitioner could not be allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh on mutual basis. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 5 submits that the matter of the petitioner and the respondent No.7 were processed for mutual allocation along with various other employees The name of the petitioner and the respondent No.7 are placed at serial No. 22 and 22-A in the list (Annexure R—3/ 1) for transfer on mutual basis. The State of Chhattisgarh had been repeatedly requested by the State of Madhya Pradesh to give concurrence by letters dated 5.3.2003, 28.52003 and 24.9.2003 (Annexum R-3/2). On 23.12.2003 ( Annexure R-3/3) the Home Deparunent, State of Chhattisgarh declined to give concurrence on the ground that the proceedings in regard to transfer to other State is closed and the employees have submitted their application after the time limit. The concerned employees were directed to be informed accordingly by order dated 22. 1.2004 (Annexure R-3/ 4). Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 4 subinits that the State of Chhatn'sgarh has accepted the employees who were allocated to the State by the Central Government, after considering their option. The respondent/State of Chhattisgarh by letter dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure R/ 1) has rejected the representation of the petitioner. Thus, no further consideration in the matter is warranted by the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. Having regard to the facts situation, after a period of 10 years of the bifurcation of the State of Madhya Pradesh and creation of new State of Chhattisgarh W.e.f. 1.11.2000, I do not hnd any reason to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his allocation on mutual basis. In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— l Satish K. Agnihou‘i ”ll w Judge W H1 t