t /'-3J IN THE HIGH COURT^F^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. PETITIONER WMT PETITION NO^&2QF2004 /' SMT. RAMRATI MARKO, W/0 SHRI SAMAROO SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SUPERVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, BILASPUR, (C.G.) AND AT PRESENT RESIDING AT / AMARPUR ROAD, BEHIND OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, PENDRA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (C.G.). VERSUS KESPONDENTS P.R.^0. .............55C>./4- fr^,n.^by5hri..^ . ^ rt,..d ...........iA.».^.C^.....,^ 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH: THE SECRETARY, CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, D.K.S.BHAWAN, RAIPUR, (C.G.). 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, (ESTABLISHED) DIRECOTOATE OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR, (C.G.) \3. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, BILASPUR, (C.G.). 1 4. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (C.G.) 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KORBA, (C.G.). 6. THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTIGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, PALI, DISTRICT KORBA, (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ._......L.-_;..-:::1:K_, ^A INDIA, fY Ucl' w^l'^T^fw 'TOT W^'^HI^ ^sr ^i^ii^'4, ^>Tily<i<c, i®t<-ii<H^< ..\I^..,..Q...-:...S:&.^..^O.f?..ik. (^f^^1) 'i'^TW^^3?!^T 28.1.2005 Shri ftajedi Pandey, counse Learned counsel for the ^s^t^l<iiffl '^^t ^ ft^ Tf^$R '^'^^?^T^¥r for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Panel jjawyer for the State/respondents. Smt. Effat Ara, presently ^orkjn9 as S.D.O., Kota and Shri Anand Prakash Kispota, District Pro^ramme Officer, Women and ChHd Development, Bilaspur, are presen^- in person in Ifie Court-. jState submits that he has fjted an application for taking docume^nts on record today itself vtde P.R.No.662/20C®. In compliance of the oifder dated 27.1.2005, an order of cancelhtion of transfer of the petritioner dated 4.8.2004 has been filed along with this opplication. Leamed counsel for the p^tjtioner submits that in pursuonce of the earlier transfer order dajt-ed 25.3.2003 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was relieved from villojge Pali, bistrict- Korba to Bilaspur on 30.8.2003. Th®document of re|lievin9 is filed as Annexui<e P-2. He further submits that she joined W of posting) on 8.9.2003, a copy of | the office at Bilaspur (her new place [joinin9 report is fiied as Annexure P-3. This petition was filed for issuan^e of an appropriate writ regardjng the compliance of order dated 25.3.2]003 because as per allegations in the G-RPRJ—FS/350— 12/2000—50,000. sp.-yA?3;- ~3^ ^WW^, ^^\W\^, M<ri!^^< 3?T^l^Tf^W 'WT^l^¥lsCTW Fr -^l^T ^^ (^i^^) i'CTW^ft^^i^T •3L- learrjied writ petition, the respondent^ their Bilaspur office. A perusal of the ret|i subsequently cancelled. A coi the same was cancelled on 4.6(. at her previous place of postin^ The submission of aforeaxid coOTcellation order for this reason only, the pe1 petition. Now after filing of aforesaid cancellation order dcl Learned counsel for petitioner will join at Pali as itself when the copy of the Let the petitioner join village Pali, District-Korba. Learned counsel for thel and circumstances, the petiti< period from l.9.2003 till toda^ compljed the tronsfer order d^ ^I^^JN 'HR^f ^ fe^f IM^K ^^RTH^T^T were not allowing the petitioner to join at im shows that the transfer order was ^y of order, filed today goes to show that .2004 omd the petitioner wos again posted i.e. at village Pali, District-Korba. counsel for the petitioner js that the ^s never served upon the petitioner omd litioner wos constrained to file this writ •^e returns and also after filin9 of the ^ited 4.8.2004, the situation is clear. [the petitioner submits that now the order has been received by her today has been supplied by the State counsel. at her previous pkxce of posting i.e. at 1fie sadie I petitioner also submits that in the facts jner has not r-eceived the salary for the ^. He further submits that since she has |ited 25.3.2003 and she has been relieved GRPRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. BBtetSaa^asafeii^ '3 ^?1^T^T'R';STO ^IT •^T^T'^^^' 3<*^^ -3^T ^SNKrl^, ^TTl^^Ko, [^<rll^^< -^I^T TT?^ (^qf^^r) on 2.8.2003 and hos given her j<j the respondents are under obl with law. Since the matter of payi|fient subject matt-er of this writ peti any opinion on the same. Howev^ Pali, the petitioner files an app^licat for releasing her pay for this considered and disposed of in be paid according to her entitlei|nent< With the aforesaid disposed of. Certified copy as per rulejs. ^qi^pq^f •RTq^f^ fe^ ^N^R: ^^f^r^i^T >ining at Bilaspur on 8.9.2003, therefor®, Igation to pay her salary in accordcince of salary to the petitioner is not a i|-ion, this Court- is not inclined to express ^sr, it is observed that if after joining at ap^lication before the concemed authority |intermediate period, the same diall be a<|cordance with law and the petitioner will t-1eihent. ob^eryations, the petition stands finally Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge GRPRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. ^