R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the learned Standing Counsel was granted time to file a counter affidavit on 10th August, 1990 and 12th December, 1990. As no counter affidavit was filed, by stop order dated 4th February, 1991 further time was granted to the learned standing counsel. On 8 -3 -1991 the writ petition was listed but as no counter affidavit was filed, hence case was adjourned for so that learned Standing Counsel may avail the opportunity and file the counter affidavit. But counter affidavit could not be filed. I have heard Sri. S.C. Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that he is a Khandsari Inspector and by the impugned order dated 14th June, 1990 he has been attached to the office of the Assistant Sugar Commissioner, Bijnor where he had no work and he is sitting idle since then. Petitioner also filed a supplementary affidavit in para. 6 whereof he has stated that several posts of Khandsari Inspector are lying vacant and suitable officers have not been appointed, the action of the respondent No. 2 in not appointing the petitioner at some proper place where he can function as Khandsari Inspector is arbitrary and malafide. As no counter affidavit has been wed, I have no option but to believe the averments made in the writ petition. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Chinnasamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others : 1988 (57) FLR 792, has held as under: The scheme postulates that every public officer has to be given some posting commensurate to his status and circumstances should be so created that would be functioning so as to render commensurate service in lieu of the benefits received by him from the State. If an officer does not behave as required of him under the law he is certainly liable to be punished in accordance with law but it would ordinarily not be appropriate to continue an officer against a post and provide no work to him and yet pay him out of the consolidated Fund. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid legal position given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The direction of the respondent No. 2 in not giving proper posting to the petitioner cannot be appreciated in any manner.
(2.) FOR the reasons recorded above the respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to give proper posting to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent No. 2 and he must be assigned work as contemplated under the rules and the procedure in respect of the post of Khandsari Inspector held by the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. A certified copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days.;