IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 564 of 2008 (S/S) Smt. Rakhi Rani W/o Sudesh Kumar R/o Village Khedi Sikohpur @ Ganja Majra Post Biharigarh, District Haridwar. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. Zila Pariyojana Adhikari, Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2. Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari Block Bhagwanpur, Distt. Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 03.06.2008, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner, an Anganwadi worker, of Khedi Sikohpur has been directed to shift from Gaja Majra Centre to the main village i.e. Khedi Sikohpur. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will have to go on foot six kilometers from Gaja Majra to Khedi Sikohpur and that creates practical difficulties in discharge of her duties. The impugned order on its perusal 2 shows that infact it is Khedi Sikohpur where the Anganwadi worker is originally posted, but since, the said village comprises of many other hamlet, the petitioner has been allowed to work from village Gaja Majra. By the impugned order she is been asked to go to the main place of posting. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order has been passed under pressure from one Pooram Kamboj, another Anganwadi worker, as she wants to go to Gaja Majra and to avoid that situation, the Centre at Gaja Majra itself has been cancelled and petitioner has been directed to join her duties at Khedi Sikohpur. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, this Court in the above circumstances, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order, passed by respondent No. 2, as it does not violate the right of the petitioner. However, it appears just and proper to direct the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation if made by the petitioner for redressal of her grievances. Therefore, this writ petition is summarily disposed of directing that the petitioner may make a representation to respondent No. 2 for redressal of her grievances, which shall be decided by said authority within a period of one month, from the date certified copy of this order along with such representation is produced before it. (Stay Application No. 4280 of 2008 also stands dismissed, accordingly). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. July 15, 2008. H.Negi