1 2025:CGHC:46310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2877 of 2023 1 - Tokeshwar Singh Kesariya S/o Kirtiraj Singh Kesariya Aged About 37 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-3 Office Of Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Block Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Engineering, Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Health Engineering, Department, Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering, Area Jagdalpur, District : RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering, Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased set aside the order dated 17.04.2023 (Annexure P/1) and further direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner co continue his services at the present place of posting i.e. Office of Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Block Kanker. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was initially appointed on compassionate grounds and accordingly posted in 3 the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2010. Subsequent to the said appointment, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Keshkal in the due course of administrative exigency. Thereafter, by virtue of an order dated 13.08.2019, the petitioner’s services were again transferred and placed under the Public Health Engineering Division, Kanker. However, it is most respectfully submitted that vide order dated 17.04.2023, the petitioner’s services were attached to the office of the Public Health Engineering Department, Bijapur, which is in contravention of the Government of Chhattisgarh’s Notification dated 04.06.2001. The said notification lays down specific guidelines and restrictions with respect to service placements and transfers in certain areas, which have been overlooked in the impugned transfer/attachment order. Aggrieved by the arbitrary and unlawful attachment of service, and having no efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking redressal of the grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner’s service has been attached from the Public Health Engineering Department (PHE), Kanker to the PHE, Bijapur by virtue of the impugned order dated 17.04.2023. It is submitted 4 that the said order of attachment has been passed without due consideration of the prevailing Government policy as laid down in the order dated 04.06.2001, whereby the State Government has expressly imposed a ban on all forms of service attachments. Despite the subsistence of the said circular and the prohibition contained therein, the petitioner has been subjected to attachment in clear contravention of the Government's binding directive. This action, it is submitted, not only violates the administrative instructions currently in force but also results in manifest arbitrariness, thereby adversely affecting the petitioner’s service rights and interests 4. Pursuant to the order dated 3.5.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court, a stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. In consequence of the said order, the petitioner continues to discharge duties and functions in the capacity of Assistant Grade- III in the office of the Public Health Engineering Department, Kanker. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the State has opposed the aforementioned contention, submitting that the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are devoid of merit and ought not to be entertained by this Hon’ble Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration that the impugned order was passed on 17.04.2023, followed by the stay order granted on 03.05.2023, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 17.04.2023 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the said order is hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that this shall not preclude the respondent authorities from passing a fresh and appropriate order concerning the posting of the petitioner, in accordance with law, if they so deem it necessary or expedient to do so. 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat