il"""'i ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHAGARH AT B!LASPUR TTIS D B HON BLE Mr JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA 8: ‘ HON BLE Mr JUSTICE R N CHANDRAKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.40I201 1 PK Khare S/o Late MP Khare aged about 59 years R/o Qtr’ No F- Irngatlon Colony, g- Pendra Road Bilaspurg‘ District Bilaspur (C‘G.) APPELEANT g Versus of Chhattlsgarh Through Secretary, Water Resourqes Department a D KS Bhawan Rarpur (C.G.) 2 Engmeer-m—Chref Wate Resources Department Smhawa Bhawan Rarpur District Ratpur (C G) 3 Ajay Kumar Sharma Executive Engineer (DeSIgn) ‘ V ' Offce of Chref Engineer Mahanadl Prerect Raipur, § ‘ District Raipur (C G ) RESPONDENTS 1 State WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2' SUB—SECTION 1 OF T HHATTISGARH HIGH COURT APPEAL TO DIVISION BEN 'L ACT, 2007 ’ HE C CH I gggearance Counsel for the appéIlant Mr Vivek Sharma Mr A S Kachhwaha respondents 1 & 2 Mr Yashwant Trwan Counsel for respondent No.3 ORAL ORDER (03 02 201 1) n Dy Advocate General for he following order of the Court was passed by ufnii Kumar Sinha, J. eard on admission H _ ppellant -P K Khare has filed this appeal against the orde dated 12 01 2011 passed in W P (S) No 4739/2010 The above writ petition was tiled challenging the order dated 06 08 2010 of transfer of respondent No 3 as also the order dated 18 08 2010 whereby, the appellant was directed to hand over the charge of Executive 3 ~ Engineer to respondent No ;f?":lfi"fj)”‘‘i I?” 2$731. i’‘: IT A; -2 A a Wifm—VITWK r . T S $ A r 2 . WRIT APPEAL No.4012011 J ; The appellant was holding the substant ve post of'Assistant Engineer and he was holding the charge of Executive Engineer, because no Executive Engineer was avaiiabie in the office, where thei appeiiant was ‘ posted. By the imp ‘gned order dated O6 O8 2010 respondent No3 who was hoi ing the substantive post of Executive Engineer was transferred to the offce where the appellant was posted and thereafter the appellant was directed to hand over the charge of Executive Engineer to respondent No 3 The appellant rarsed the grievance that Since he has only 3 months servrce to retire he may not be disturbed at this stage _ The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant, held that there was no illegality in the said two orders because the appellant was holding the substantive post of Assrstant Engineer and when the Executive Engineer (respondent No 3) came on transfer to the same office the concerned authorities were right to direct the appellant to hand over the charge of Executive Engineer to respondent No 3 The writ petition fled by the appellant therefore was dismissed i Learned counsel for the appellant argues that some protection may be granted to the appellant because he is going to retire within 2-3 months ‘z The impugned order dated 12.01.2011 takes care of the k , abovie‘ grievance of the appellant vide paraJm, which reads as, under: “7. HaVIng regard to the fact that the petitioner is to retire Within three months the State authorities may consider 2 posting him either in the same place as Assistant Engineer 1 or nearby place so that he may not be disturbed affecting -his servrce career substantially Within a period of three months.” ' On due consideration of the submissmns made by learned counsel for the parties we do not find any good ground to entertain this infra Court appeal for further hearing l The appeal therefore is liable to dismissed and ts hereby ' \f‘v't; dismissed summarily . , ,m’ Sdl— g; Sdl- CHANDRAKAR RANGANATH KUMAR smHA ‘ ’ Judge Judge v . W WEE;