High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6723/2018disposed off

Shoeb Qazi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-08-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6723 of 2018 Shoeb Qazi S/o G.A. Qazi, Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Labour Commissioner, Office Of The Labour Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Labour Commissioner Department Of Labour, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Special Secretary, Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Smt. Anita Gupta Working As Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 22/08/2019

1. The Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order (Annexure P-1) dated 03.10.2018 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Sukma. The petitioner was also having an interim protection in his favour vide order dated 08.10.2018 but pending the writ petition before this Court and the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner. The respondents now has passed an order dated 03.08.2019 whereby the order of transfer transferring the petitioner from Raipur to Sukma has been withdrawn. The said order dated 03.08.2019 has been brought on records by either side.

2. Given the said facts that challenge in the present writ petition being to the order of transfer which now after the order dated 03.08.2019 does not exist and the petition stands restored to the position as it stood prior to 03.10.2018. The substantive grievance of the petitioner raised in the present writ petition stands redressed.

3. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of as having become infructuous. However, in case, if there is any adverse decision taken subsequently or subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner would avail other remedy open to him under the law. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha