^^^-^^ ^s*^^ 2N THS HIGH ©O^KT OF .JT?BICATI3RE M BILASPl?a (G»G«) ^ WB2T PETITION N©«' @P 2003 BErWEEK Savita Sharma Mfe off Shri Naren^ra Kamar i^iarma^ aged about 38 years, wrMn^ as Wbman Hsaltfe N&rKer, p@ste<3 / at ^teary Healtto Gtexstire Itondagaon ~ Kibaee Bal^nga^ ©istrietBastar (©G)• / %TITI©NEE ^ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A N E Itie j^ate of CihhattisQarh^ Through the Seeretary BepartiBent of family H@al<th an^ WBlfare j@epar(smeRt» ©•K.s.Building,Baipiar^ tehsil and Bistrtct Eaipur (€S)» Ihe chief Medical ond H@alth Gffiaer^ Bastar alstriot Jagdalpur (CG) • J^.'' < ^^ <- -^s gloek Medical ©ffieer, c^^^^' EiTimary H8all3i Gaifere, H&ndagaon "^7'' ^o^y ©istsiefeBastar (€G)• ^••'''^'^ ffloclc Medical ©ffiGer, . ^^^ ^ Rrimary Health ©entr©,Maak»3i ^ ^ Mstri.ct Bastar (CG) • ' ^" ant<i A^lina Mishra^ Mahila Swas-tehya Karyak;arta»Lubha ^Maafcadi, Eistrict Bast.ar (CQ)* RBStOIIQENTS WRIT F&'EL'SLQS T3NBBR ^RTISLES 226/227 ©PTHE €@NSTITTOION ©P JSSI^ ' " ' ' "" """ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2578 of 2003 Petitiouer: Savita Shaiiua Versus Respoudents: The State of Chhattisgarh & others to4. Sin^le Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K.Agaihotri. Shii Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for fhe peutioner. Shri Pajikaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the Respondents No. 1 None for respondent No. 5. ORAL ORDER ( 8th Febmaiy, 2006) The foUowmg order ofthe Court was passed by Batish K. Agsaihotri, J, 1. The petitioner, who was workiag 011 fhe post of WoniaB. Health Worker at Prmiajy Healfh Centre Kondagaon, District- Baster was trajisferred vide order dated 2.8,2003 (Annexiire P/ 1) to Lubha ( PiTsnary Health Centre Makdi) on the groiind of mutual consent between the petitioner aad fhe Respondent No.5. Earlier fhe petitioner had made an application for miitual transfer but later oii vide letter dated 19,6.2000 (Annexure P/2), addrcssed to the Respoadent No,2, she withdrcw fhe miitual consent. Leaiiied coimsel for the petitioiier submits that wifhout lookiiig iii to the subsequent letter dated 19,6,2000, after a lapse of morc thaii tliree years, the impugned order has been passed 011 2,8.2003. 2. Leaiiied counsel appeariiig for the respoudents No, 1 to 4 is uot in a position to explaia as to why the ioipugned order was passed cn the basis of flie mutusi consexit between the petitioner aud rcspondent No,5, when the appUcation for niiitual consent was withdrawn way back on 19.6.2000 by the petitioner. The petitioner has chaUengecl the UBpngned order dated 2,8.2003, 3. This Coiirt by order dated 1,9.2003 stayed tiie operation of the traiisfer order, tiU flie uext date of heaiiiig. This order was iiever iiiodi&ed nor varied, later on, Accoidin.gly, the petitioner has contuiuecl 011 the same place ofpostiag, till date. 4, Havhig heard learne.d counsel for flie parties and having penised the records, I am of fhe view tiiat the impugned order was passed without aiiy basis, 011 tlie Dintual coiisent made earlier, which had alreacly been withdrawn vide letter dated 19,6,2000. Be fhat as it may, the petitioiier has stayed at the old place ofpostuig by virtue of the stay oider passed by tliis Court, The iixipugiied order, passed 011 the basis of the mutual consent, which was withdrawn later on by the petitioner, is not sustsiiiable aiid deserves to be quashed, 5, In vie^7 oftlie fore goiag, the petition staiids aJlowed, No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur