T (^ 1^^— IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)NO.^g,^' /20l.(? '. . PETITIONER RESPONDENTS '\^^ ^•^w ^/f^ Smt. Ragini Pradhan W/o.Late BliN Vijay Anand Pradhan, Aged about 43 years, R/o Gondpar^ Bilaspur^ Distt.- Bilaspur, Supervisor, Wbrileri 85 Child Development Departiyxent presently posted at prQJect lV[U$tur?^ Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ThroUgh: tb^ Secretaiy, Wotneh 8^ 14 Development Department, D.K.0 Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2.' The District Program Officer Women 8s Child Development DepartiTlent, Bilaspur Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Ku. Sangita Yadav D/Q Shiri Premlal Yadav, Super^isor Womeri & Child Development Department^ Balauda Bazar Project, Dl?tt,-: Raipur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION <S) N0.4284 OF 2010 PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Ragini Pradhan Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others -K" ^. HI1 -^' (WritPetitionunderArticles226oftheConstitutionoflndia) SingleBench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- ShriBhupendra Singh, Adyoc^te for the petitioner. ShriAJitSingh,PanelLawyerfortheState. Shri SameerBehar,Advocate!fortheresponc!ehtNo.3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this26th day cjfApril, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for thje petitioner submits that vide order dated 15-7-2010, the pefitio|ner, working as Supervisor in Women & Child Development Department, Prpject Masturi, has been transferred tp Prpject Gaurela, on aditiinis|ratjve grounds. However, by vjrtue of order dated 9-8-2010, the order dated 15-7-2010, which is impugned lierein could notj be given effect to, wherein this Court direcrted to ijnajntain ste^s q^ counsel further submits that tHe petitioner is continuing^^^a origirial placeofposting. j 1 2. Since more than eight months have passed aticl in view of the order dated 9-8-2010, the petitipner is continujng at ;the original place6fposting,itisriotnecessarytogointothemeritsofthe caseatthisstage. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the Government may be grarited liberty to pass | a fresh qrder without jnsisting on compliance of order datect 15-7-2010, in respect ofthe petitioner, 4. In view of the above submission, according fo leamed counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjuclication at thisstage. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforestated observationand liberty, if soadvised. SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ^^