Dismissed

Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Mar 2012WA/88/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal challenging the repatriation of a Sub-Engineer from the State Information Commission to his parent, the Water Resources Department. The court held that the borrowing department could not block direct repatriation to the parent department.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed summarily.

Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of C.G. and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF^{CHHATTISGARH,BILASPUR} Writ Appeal^No.88/2012

¶2

¶3

DB:HON’BLE^{$HRISUNILKUMARSINHA&} HON’BLE SHR! RADHE^{SHYAMSHARMA,JJ.}

¶4

Mahesh Kumar Sharma s/o Lt. Ram Kishan Sharma, aged about 51 years, Sub Engineer, r/o 11, Arjun Enciave,^{BhairavNagar,Post} Office, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsi! and District^Raipur (CG)

¶5

APPELLANT (Petitioner)

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarri,^Through: its Secretary, General Administration Department,^{DKSBhawan,Raipur,} TahsH And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Water Resources Department, DKS^{Bhawan,Raipur,} Tahsii And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

Chhattisgarh State information Commission, Through its Secretary, .Nirmai Chaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Raipur, Tahsii And District^Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

WRIT APPEAL UNDER^SECTION2 11)^OFTHE CHHATTISGARH^HIGHCOURT (APPEAL^TODiViSION BENCH) ACT,²⁰⁰⁶

¶14

Appearance: '

¶15

Shri Anumeh Shrivastava,^{Advocatefortheappeiiant.} Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents^{onadvancecopy.}

¶16

WA 88/2012

¶17

ORAL ORDER (01.03.2012)

¶18

Sum'l Kumar Sinha, J.

¶19

Heard on admission.

¶20

This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th of January, 2012, passed in W.P.(S) No. 95/2012. Bythe impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order dated 15.12.2011, whereby, the petitioner has been repatriated to the parent department i.e. Water Resources Department, has been dismissed by the‘lwrit Court. The petitioner is a Sub-Engineer. His services were taken on deputation from Water Resources Department to General Administration Department vide order dated 25.07.2009. Thereafter, on 2.2.2010, he was posted‘in the office of Chhattisgarh State information Commission. Later on, by impugned order dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition), his services have been repatriated to the Water Resources Department, Raipur. ,

¶21

Shri Shrivastava submits that since the appellant was sent from General Administration Department to the office of Chhattisgarh State information Commission, therefore, he should not have been repatriated to the Water Resources Department. This is not disputed that the appellant/petitioner is an employee of Water Resources Department and by the deputation

¶22

WA 88/2012

¶23

order, firstly he was taken to General Administration Department and thereafter, he was posted in the office of Chhattisgarh State information Commission. it is further not disputed that the General Administration Department can post any employee in the office of Chhattisgarh State information Commission. Therefore, the second order, by which, the appellant was posted in the office of Chhattisgarh State information Commission was simply a posting order. When the borrowing department decided to repatriate the services of the appellant, there was no impediment in sending him directly to the parent department. No such provision of law could be shown either before the writ Court or this Court.

¶24

The writ Court, relying on the principles laid down in State of Punjab & Others V. Inder Singh & Others (1997) 8 SCC 372, held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 15.12.2011, whereby, the services of the appellant were repatriated to his parent department.

¶25

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substance in the writ appeal. The writ appeal filed by the appellantjpetitioner, therefore, is liable to dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.

¶26

Sd/Sil'n‘il Kumar Sinha Judge

¶27

Sd/— Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge

Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ganesh Prathmik Sahkari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Virgo Softech Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shankar Sendre and Ors. Vs Cg. State Information and Ors.

Kamla Devi Agrawal Vs the Municipal Corporation,Durg

Narendra Kumar Verma Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Kuldeep Arora Vs Municipal Conucil Kharsia and Ors.