<? 6^ HIGH COURT Cff CWIAmSQARH: BILASPUR Vftit P6titien_No.JS^^_^S6 PelBtioners Respondents 1) Bansital Dewangan, ag«iabout 48 yeare, Slo: Shri K.P. Dewangan, resident ofSastri Bhawan, Indrasen Nagar, Mangla, Distt. Bilaspur(CG). . 2) Rajkumar Shrivastavfa, aged about 43 years, S/o. Shri S.S. Shrivastava, residertt ofQtr. No. H- 5, Nutan Colony, New Sarkanda, District Bilasfwr 3) Rajesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 46 years, S/o. Shri D.N. Sharma, residerit of Bharu Kholi, arehouse Road, Bllaspur (CG). 4) Rajkumar Bole, aged about 51 years, S/o. Shri Hari La! Bote, resldent of Tikarapara, Shivaji Marg, Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattlsgaiti through the Secretaty, Public Worte Department, Dau ~ Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Engineer-in-Chief, Publte Works Department, D.K.S. Buildding, Raipur (CG). 3) Chief Engineer, Publte Worte Etepartmert, Bilaspur (CG). 4) Executive Engineer, Pubtic Woiks Department, Division No.1, Bilaspur (CG). 5) D.K. Dubey, S/o. Shri R.G. Dubey, aged abcut 56 years, resident of Old Satencla (Shiighat) Bilaspur (CG). 6) S.K. Gupta, S/o. Late M.L Gupta, aged about 44 years, resident of Shiv Mandir Rcact, Mangta Naka Chovri<, Kududand, Bilaspur (CG). 7) S.K. Pandey, S/o. Shri B.P. Pandey, aged atxaut 53 years, residert of R.T.S. Colony, Qtr.No.535, Bilaspur (CG). 8) M.S. Rajput, S/o. G.S. Rajput, aged about 54 yeare, resident of village At PO Janji, Tahsil Masturi, Dlstt. Bilaspur (CG). 9) Superintendent Engineer, Public Woris Department, Bilaspur Divislon, Bilaqaur (CG). (Writ Petition under Articte 226/227 of the Constltution of India.) SB: Hon'bie Mr. SaUsh K. Agnthotn, J. Present: Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for the petitloners, Shri Alok Bal<shi, Govt. Advocate forthe responderts No. 1 to4& 9/State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the responderts No. 5 to 8. ^esBs ORALOROER (ni^edonZtf1' p9bnstry,WM] Leamed counset appearing for the petitionets aubmits ttiat this peUtton was fited chaltenging the order dated 22-4-2006 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petrtlon®s were transferred as under .^ 2) This Court after hearing leamed counsel for the parties stayed the effsct and operation ofthe impugned order dated 22-4-2006 (Annexure P/1) on 3-5-2006. virtue of interlm relief granted by this Court, the petitioners have continued on their original place of posting for about 21 months. This matter relates to transferfptacement. If the petittonere succeed, in that event also the employer oannot be restrained from passing a fresh order to (xastan emptoyee in the pubtto Interest and administrative exigency. 3) In view of the above, the petitton is dlsposed of with liberty reserved to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to pass appropriate orders keeplng in view the pubtic interest and administrative exigency, ifso requires, without insisting oncompliaroeof-the impLgned transfer order. Raju Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge wo )c&4-yr^ ^pr 'wi WR'TOI -^N^QT ^S(R 'rit^ is^Pft iwsFi/Ws _1 ~ffi—^S^.^7 •tl61«l<t>4^—3 - vwS. a^npfrs aiBimft Ttt.ft.ft. ai-j'<i*i w.—i •ti-iitiy wnt. itiiiloicw aiPttidl dtRB. raw'y^'t ww Rdi'tty ^ ^im 'siv 4 si<«w. ^>Nt <ft A^a. 44i<i'< ^ret. <te-a 1^ 1 WF»1R 2 ^t VI.VI. 'iWlU WSPW ^8-3 wrt. wrtwwi aflRro ylPiR.. ft<!(i<i<t< vfS. <t>l4*ii<!i-< iiiRlddl tilPlR. R»H'u'^< wwi toiroy ^ ^w ife 4 fwt RiR* ^l aiRrf. <M. nn. 'iw-»^ I win Vt . 3 •Bsw^. w^ WP'W 4%— wrt. aq.RwfN <i lft.. ai^'iw w. 2 I^^rtl^ ;wif- '»>li!iM-t «W-<titgWW. ftWB^! wiw ftciKiy A Aar ^i-4 aAia^.w. | 1, Rdro^ '^S aiR-A w* WE 3t»-»! ^ WWR 4 <ft <p(.<. ''par <lSI<l<fr 4S—3 Wlt. <1>1<I<4W') OlRlirK nNi>ft..ftaRiy iWrt. iW4<ifeM «»Baiaiwa., flBin^i;:! wfps ftaray ^ ^w SPW 4 s < w. z. ft<!<wip ^t aR.A <!!»WW. XISt 1 <%-3 ^ WWR J