@ \ Slng‘e Bench N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SLNO. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vs MXIO ¢ Uike [2011 / Vandifa (Wrongly mentioned as Vaidi’ra Uike in fhe Impugned Order), W/o Khemr'aj Uike, aged 48 years, Occupafion- Service preSenTly Disfricf— Pamgarh, Champa (C.G.) Janjgir— f... 1. STaTe of Chhaf‘fisggrh, The Through Secremry, Woman and Child Development Deparfmem‘, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (5):— As per The cause “rifle. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE REsPONDENT (5):— As per ’rhe cause Ti’rle. I W working as Supervisor Unified Child and Woman Deveiopmem‘ Z. ProjecT Officer, Unified, Child and Woman Developmenf Project Pamgarh, Disfricf~ Janjgir- Champa (6.6.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF T ONSTITUTION OF INDIA w SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. A nihotl ' J. Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION g S) No. 4550 of2011 Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ' ORDER ORAL (Passed on 11 ’day of August, 201 1) l. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Supervisor at Unified Child & Woman Development Project, Pamgarh, has been transferred to Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa on administrative grounds vide order dated 11.072011 (Annexure P/I). Shri Shrivastava futther submits that the husband ofthe petitioner is also a government servant and working as Assistant Development Extension Officer at Pamgarh. Thus, in View of the transfer policy of the State which prescribes that as far as possible, the husband and wife must be posted at the same place, the petitioner ought to have been posted at the nearest place of posting of the husband. . Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that ifthe petitioner alongwith her husband makes a joint representation raising their grievances, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks. i In View of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotii’ Judge ii Amit x mt it: uni HE C PETITIONRR I : Vandita Uke. RESPONDENTS VERSUS