R THANSANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.G.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.Sailo, learned Govt Advocate for the State-respondents.

(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner questioned the validity of the impugned notification dated 23.7.2002 issued by the competent authority as in Annexure 9 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department, namely the Agriculture Department, and on his repatriation he shall be designated as Officer on Special Duty (in short OSD) in his own grade and shall be responsible for the monitoring of the Mizoram Intodelhna Project (herein after referred to as Project) by contending inter alia, that initially the petitioner was allowed to go on deputation as Additional Secretary to the Govt of Mizorarn, Soil & Water Conservation Department, under the related order/notification dated 27.5.1999 as in Annexure 2 tothe writ petition without his consent. However, the petitioner had complied with the related Govt order/ notification dated 27.5.2002 and went on deputation as an Additional Secretarty to the Govt of Mizorarn. In the year 2001 the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No.78 of 2001 questioning the validity of the related order dated 27.5.1999 by which he had been sent on deputation and this Court under its judgment and order (oral) dated 27.3.2002 opined thus :

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.3.2002, the State-respondents preferred a writ appeal being Writ Appeal No.217 of 2002 and the same is still pending before this Court but, the operation of the judgment and order dated 27.3.2002 is not stayed and the same is still operative in the eye of law. As the authority concerned/respondents did not comply with the related judgment and order dated 27.3.2002 and apart from that, even after the expiry of the period of 3 (three) years on deputation, the petitioner had not been repatriated and that being the position the writ petitioner filed a contempt petition being Contempt Case (C) No.5 of 2002 which is also still pending before this Court but, in the meantime the respondents-authority passed impugned order dated 23.7.2002.