Chattisgarh High Court
Jageshwar Ram Bhagat vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WA No. 271 of 2025
JAGESHWAR RAM BHAGAT versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
05/05/2025 Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Vivek Verma, learned
counsel for appellant and also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned
Dy. A. G. assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned G.A. for the
State/Respondent No. 1 & 2, Mr. Roop Ram Naik, learned counsel
for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Harsh Tripathi, learned counsel for
respondent No. 4 and Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for
Intervener.
Vide order dated 25.04.2025, this Court has passed the
following order:-
"This intra-Court appeal has been filed by the
appellant challenging the order dated
10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition (S) No.7 of 2025, whereby the
writ petition filed by the appellant has been
dismissed.
Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant is holding
the substantive post of Chief Engineer Water
Resources Department and vide transfer order
dated 01.01.2025, he has been transferred in
the office of Director, Managing Chhattisgarh
Infrastructure Development Corporation Raipur
(On deputation). He further submits that the
appellant had challenged the said order on the
ground that, no order of deputation can be
passed without obtaining the consent of parent
Department and the borrowing Department. It
has been contended that respondent No.3 is
holding the substantive post of Superintending
Engineer and he has been posted as In-charge
Chief Engineer in place of the appellant, which
is not only violative of the transfer policy e.g.
Clause No. 2.14, which specifically provided
that, normally the post which is lying vacant by
transfer should have been filled up by the officer
of the same cadre and the charge should not be
given to the junior officer. Reliance has been
placed upon the judgment rendered by Division
Bench of this Court in the matter of Dalsoo Ram
Darro State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary,
Water Resources Department and others
reported in 2020 (3) CGLJ 526 (DB).
Mr. Paranjpe has argued that the learned
Single Judge has not considered the fact that
the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development
Corporation (for short, "CIDC") and Water
Resources Department are two different
Departments and the employee of one
Department cannot be transferred to another
Department. He further argued that such transfer
would amount to deputation and the said order
cannot be passed without obtaining consent of
the employee and merely handing over the
administrative control will not save the order of
deputation.
Mr. Roop Ram Naik, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3 fairly submits
that respondent No.3 had been transferred vide
order dated 01.01.2025 on the place of the
appellant and he has joined the place of posting
and is going to superannuate on 30th of this
month i.e. 30.04.2025.
In that view of the matter, let the matter be
again listed on 05.05.2025, by which date, the
State counsel is directed to inform this Court
regarding the decision taken by the Authority
concerned as no order of deputation can be
passed without obtaining the consent of parent
Department and the borrowing Department.
Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the respondent No. 3 Arun Kumar Shai, Incharge
Chief Engineer, Hasdev Kacchar Water Resources Department
Bilaspur, has attained superannuation and retired on 30.04.2025.
He further submits that after the retirement of the respondent No. 3,
one Mr. R.R. Sarthi who was the Superintending Engineer at
Raigarh, has been given additional charge of Chief Engineer in
place of the respondent No. 3 i.e. Hasdev Kacchar Water Resources
Department Bilaspur. A copy of the same has been produced by the
State Counsel, which is taken on record.
Mr. Anand Dadriya, learned counsel for intervener- R.R. Sarthi
submits that he has taken over the charge from the respondent No.
3 and he has already joined the said place of posting. He further
submits that on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for
respondent No. 3 has only given the submission that the respondent
No. 3 is going to superannuate on 30.04.2025.
Mr. Dadriya, learned counsel for intervener tried to justify the
order passed by the Competent Authority, but we are not satisfied
with the arguments raised as there is specific order of this Court that
the authorities concerned has to decide the matter with respect to
the fact that no order of deputation can be passed without obtaining
the consent of parent Department and the borrowing Department.
When the matter is sub judice before this Court, it was not
expected by the authorities concerned to pass the order dated
30.04.2025 as it amounts to interference with administration of
justice.
In view of above, this Court grants one more opportunity to the
State counsel in order to enable the authorities concerned to take
appropriate fresh decision and to inform this Court.
Let the matter be listed again on 07.05.2025
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Jyoti
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2025.05.05
18:38:43
+0530
