~i~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DLVISLQN^ENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ^.Sf%..^^, •E;l'T"ealsR^ AppeHant (Respondent) No. 1.2 & 3 Respondents (Petitioner) Writ Appeal No.166 /2007 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Under Secretary (Heafth), State of Chhatti^arh, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Smt. S.A. Baghmar, Aged about 40 years, W/o Shri Baghmar, R/o Village Dev Samundra Post Offlce, Pallari, District : Raipur (C.G.) WritAppeal Under Section 2 (1) ofthe Chhattisgarh High Court (ADpeat to Division Beneh) Act, 2006. Present: Shri J.K. Gilda, learned Additional Advoc^e General for the State/appellants. Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for respondent. JUDGMENT (Passed on 07TH February, 2008) Learned counsel forthe partiesare heard on admission. 2. The appellants have fited this writ appeal against the impugned judgment dated 21st February, 2007 passed in W.P.(S) No.4522of2(K55. ^ "iFa. ':;;^'"\ 1 ^ '<^ :.,. '^•^•/' "' 3:i';S;£ ';t'/' 3. The respondent Smt. S.A. Baghmar had fited Originat Application before the State Administratlve Tribunal for the fotlowing retiefs: "9.1 ^f? ^P 31I^R*I 'PT WFiRTW SiT^T ^-1 ^W TR ail^RcM q?T -fwci ~^c^ affRtm t ~V\ f?R'RI 'RpqT ufR^ ^tfrfPT q^sft WFT TR X^ ^?4 %^ W^T ^RFT cp^ c^t c^qr q5^| 9.2 3?^ SI^f^ vTT 11'1'ft'tl 3ftoW ^to Wl^ Rdl41 ulltl 9.3 311^*1 cf'T Sff^l ^rapT '^tqiR ^ 'ulT^' t|^ c^TT ^\" After the abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal the said Original Application was registered asW.P. (S) No. 4522/2005. 4. The respondent, in substence, was challenging the orders whereby she was transferred and relieved for her joining at the transferred place. 5. The learned Singte Judge after considering the rival pleadings of the parties disposed of the writ petition with the following direction contained in para 4 of the impugned judgment which reads as below: "The respondents are accordingly directed to pass appropriate order immediately after making necessary correctton in the error, if any. The respondents are further directed to consider pains and suffering what the petitioner has undergone during this period on account of error, if any, made by the respondents. The respondents are further directed to give a proper notice to the petitioner to put forward her case before taking any decision, in accordance with law. To this effect, the petitioner is at tiberty to make detailed representation before the respondents. If the B K ^ Ki:t[SsSSttsS WiSsSSS representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with taw, within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the representation in accordanee with law, being uninfluenced by any observation made, hereinabove." 6. On a bare reading of above quoted para 4 of the impugned judgment, we find that the impugned judgment only gives liberty to the respondent to make a detailed representation before the Government with the further direction that if the representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided, within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the representation In accordance with taw, being uninfluenced by any observation made, hereinabove. 7. As the appellants are free to consider and decide the respondent's representation either way in accordance with law, we do not find any ground for interferencein the matter. 8. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge . Kamde