TD Single Bench (y? 156 IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLAs w.P. (S) N0. \86H /2o11 PUR 113 THE H f” Smt. Pushplata Parichha, W/ o Philip Parichha, PETITIONER aged about 55 years, Presently 'working as a Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project, Pali, Distt. Korba~(C.L5r.) VERSUS 1.“ State of Chhattisgarh Through — the Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Distt. as; f x Q we’t, :5? N}; RESPONDENTS Korba, ‘2. WCollector, Korba—(C.G.) 3. ”District Programme Officer, Child Woman and Development, Korba, Distt. Kama—(C.G.) 4. / Arun Kalkho, Tahsildar, Pali y (Incharge) Project Onicer, . Child ' [integrated ~ Development Proj ect Pali, Distt. Korba—(C.G.) THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA V r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon‘bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the §tate. ORDER CRAL (Passed on this 7‘ day of April, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.4 to hand over the charge of Project Offtcer Integrated Chiid Development Project, Pali, District-Korba (for short “the Project Officer”), to the petitioner. Learned counset appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Project Officer, Woman and Child Development. Pali, District-Korba and on account of health problem, the petitioner applied for leave for the period from 08I02/2011 to 22/03/2011 for taking treatment in the Escort hospital, Raipur. According to the petitioner, during the said period, charge of the Project omcer was handed over to the respondent No.4 by order dated 22/02/2011 (Annexure P/2). After completion of the leave period, the petitioner joined her duties on 23/03/2011 and submitted joining letter to the higher authority vide Annexure P/3. ln spite of the joining of the petitioner, the charge of the Project Officer has not been handed over to the petitioner and presently, the respondent No.4 is working on the said post. The petitioner raising all of her grievances, submitted a representation dated 26/03/2011 (Annexure P14) before the twat» mwmwmm 1/ w n M m r: WRIT PETITION (S) No.1 864 OF 2011 PETlTlONER Smt. Pushplata Parichha Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others respondent authorities, but the same has not been considergd and decided till date. Thus, this petition. 4. Having heard iearned counsel appearing for the parties, perusal the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it appears that looking to the health problem of the petitioner, the respondent authoritiee granted leave to the petitioner and by order dated 22/02/2011, charge was handed over to the respondent No.4 in addition to his own duties. The petitioner joined her duties on 23/03l2011 and immediately pressuring the respondents to hand { over the charge, which wili take its own course of h‘me. Even, the petitioner without waiting any decision on the representation dated 26/03/2011, within a period of 1O days, approached this Court by filing this petition on 05/04/201 1. 5. lt is an admitted position that the petitioner made a representation ‘ on 26/03/2011 and as per the well settied principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in 8.8. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradeshf, a statutory representation or appeal has to be decided within a reasonable time Le. within 3 to 6 months. The petitioner without waiting for a reasonable period, has approached this Court straightway, thus the petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 6. However, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a reasonable time, in accordance with law and on its own merits. it Sd/—' Satish K. AgnihOtri ‘ Judge Arun “' ti, a