JUDGMENT
Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 29.9.1993 in Nagar Kshetra Samiti (now Nagar Panchayat), Mohanpur, District Etah. He continued to work in Nagar Panchayat, Mohanpur, However, on account of the fact that the petitioner was facing threat to his life at Mohanpur, he approached the District Magistrate, Etah for being attached to some other Nagar Panchayat of the District. By an order dated 13.2.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Etah the petitioner was attached on a class IV post with Nagar Panchayat, Amapur, District Etah. By the impugned order dated 31.12.2003 passed by the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Amapur, District Etah the attachment of the petitioner at Nagar Panchayat, Amapur, District Etah has been cancelled and he has been asked to return back to Nagar Panchayat, Mohanpur, District Etah where he was originally appointed. In the said order it has been specifically stated that because of the attachment of the petitioner, the Nagar Panchayat, Amapur, District Etah was incurring additional expenses due to which the development activities of the Nagar Panchayat were suffering. It was further stated that Nagar Panchayat, Mohanpur was not providing any additional finance for paying the salary of the petitioner and thus the petitioner was asked to return back to his original post in Nagar Panchayat, Mohanpur, District Etah.
2. I have heard Sri H.M. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondents and have perused the record.
3. Despite time having been granted to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the earlier occasion, he was not placed before this Court any provision under which the District Magistrate could direct the petitioner, who was a class IV employee, to be transferred, absorbed or attached to some other Nagar Panchayat of the District. The Nagar Panchayat, Amapur as well as Nagar Panchayat, Mohanpur, District Etah are autonomous elected bodies.
4. Learned Standing Counsel states that the petitioner not being a member of the centralized service, could not be transferred form one Nagar Panchayat to another by the District Magistrate. Although there is no provision under which the attachment of the petitioner could be so directed by the District Magistrate to another Nagar Panchayat, however, in the facts of the case, considering the exigency of the situation, the request/direction of the District Magistrate for such attachment may have been accepted by the Nagar Panchayat, Amapur. However, after having permitted the petitioner to continue under attachment for nearly three years, the Nagar Panchayat, Amapur, considering its financial restraints and difficulties, has withdrawn the attachment of the petitioner and has required him to be reverted back to his original post in Nagar Panchayat where he bad been appointed. The attachment order could not be said to be for an indefinite period. The attachment can only be done with the consent and permission of the Nagar Panchayat where the petitioner is to be attached. Having once been attached, he does not acquire any right to continue there for an indefinite period. Now when the Nagar Panchayat, Amapur, where the petitioner had been attached, in view of its financial constraints, does not wish to continue to take the services of the petitioner, in the absence of the petitioner having any legal right to continue on such post, this Court would not be inclined to direct the said Nagar Panchayat to continue to take the services of the petitioner.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. No order as to cost.