6@ /- w W75? $ingia Egam§ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(S)N0. (EWQ /2009 Chhattisgarh Kusth Services Employee Union, District Branch— Bilaspur, Through its President D;R. Lanjhekar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). PETITIONER VERSUS 1 />State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Health, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) ( 2. The Director, Raipur (C.G.) xv 3. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Medical Health, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / W// // ¢\/ 'z PHGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 3 169 of 2009 ‘ PETITIONER : Chhattisgarh Kusth Services Employee Union. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB Hon’ble Shn Satlsh K Agnlhotn, J Present: Shrl Rajesh Kumar Sharma Advocate for the petltloner Shrl N N Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents ORDER ORAL (Passed on 05 day of April, 2010) The petitioner by this petition seeks quashing of the order dated 01 08 1994 whereby the then Chlef Medlcal and Health Officer Bilaspur directed that the Headquarter of all the employees and medlcal officers of Bllha Leprosy Centre Bilha would be at Community Health Centre Bilha Thereafter by order dated 15 05 2009 (Annexure P/2) the Chief Medical & Health Officer Bilaspur has directed all the employees working 1n the Leprosy Control Unit Bilha would be under control and direction of the Block Medical Officer, Bilha. 2; The petitioner had earlier filed a writi petition being W.P.' No. 2970/1994. The said petition was dismissed on 12,7.2005 on the ground of having become infructuous as the learned counsel appearing-for the State/respondent submitted that the National Leprosy Eradication Programme had already been closed in the month of March 2004 Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for restoration being MCC No 214/2004 The application for restor§tion was though dismissed, however, liberty was granted to the petiti ner to file a hesh‘ petition, if cause of action still survived. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to shift the Leprosy Control Unit from one place to another and only the Directorate is competent to do so. Instead of shifting the Headquarter of'the' employees of the Bilha Leprosy Centre, a Medical Officer should be appointed at Bilha under whom the petitioner may work. According to the petitioner, the officer of Leprosy i\ \ \ / Centre is Directorate, Medical Health, Raipur and no other officer can be Medical Officer for the employees of Rural Leprosy Centre. Shri Sharma further submits that the petitioner is not the employee of Health Services Department. 4. Per contra, Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, relying on the affidavit dated 10.08.2009, submits that all the employees of the leprosy mission have been attached to the Health Services which is evident from circular dated 22.09.2001 (Annexure R/2). Thus, the respondent No. 3 has full authority to change the headquarter of the petitioner. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. The petitioner has not disclosed anything asto how the petitioner is affected by change of his headquarter. The contention of the petitioner that the Director of Health Services alone can issue directions and instructions and not the Chief Medical & Health Officer, is frivolous and not supported by any documentary evidence. Further, there is no particular instance shown by the petitioner that some order has been passed which is contrary to the orders passed by the Director, Health Services/Deputy Director, Leprosy, and has prejudiced cause of the employees. 7. The petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- 5‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit