-:j9pun s"e ^iuzqns o^ s§oqX];quznq ^souz jQuopi^od oqj, VIQNI JO NOIJ,nj,IASNOO SEHJ, jo 9ez aaouHV uaaNn NoiJLuad JLraM ('O'O) ^fnS^S ^I^STQ 'jnddB^BJj 'a-i^usQ q^l^SH ^i^uiuj 'jsoijjO l^c)TP9IM ^30I9 '-b ^ ('O'O) ^fnS-res ^OU^STQ 'jndB^iqmv 'jooijjO I-I^SH P^re pOTp9p\[ jsiqo -g "('O'D) 'efnS-i^S ^OU^STQ 'BfnS.res 'JO^SHOO -g (*0'0) -indre^I 'uBMBqg 'S'M'Q 'S90TAJ9S pW8 L[^B9HJO ^usm^jBdsQ : AjtB;9J39S q§nojqj, 'qj^gsp^Liqo jo o^^s • -[ : s^NaaNOdsaH snsuaA . 1>....--">' ^>"^--""' ('O 'O) ^fnS^S ^P^STQ ^ \^ ^^''' ...j^.^Y^ .'-:"- 'jndda^BJj nsqaj, 'jndd-e^-ejd --' ^{?3'y9'"(''T/ sj^uso q^Bsq AiBmud ^-e ps-^sod ^^ \^ ^U9S9jd '9JTM pT]A[ S^ OOTAJQg uoi^dnooo 'SJBS^ ^g i.noq^ p9§^'Bp-eg mBjq?[ns uqg 'o/yw 'vpvQ BHL[snqs "^ S ^ .-•<^. .?<^ 5"-..o^ HaNOIAIAQd TtOZ JO ^5 ^ l< *ON (s) *d 'M undsv^Ia AV HHVOSIJJ.VHHO jo JLHHOO HOIH SHJL NI 40U@(g @|©uis ~~^^\^} ^a^,. ^."•.r:;-^^^'\ ':^ i:-^ ^•'" .!^\ ^ HIGH COD-RT OF CHHATT1SG.4JU1 AT BILASPUR PETmONER WKIT PETITION fS) No. 4352 of2011 Smt. Sushila Bada. RESPONDENTS VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PE1THON 'UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTnUlIONO£3tNDIA SB: Hon'Me Slm Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar Shamia, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Shashank Thalcur^ Paiiel La^vyer for tlie State/respoiidents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 05th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the petitioiien working as Staff Nurse at Conimunity Healtli Centre, Pratappur, has been traiisfen'ed to 100 Bed Hospital, Wadrafaagan vide order dated 15.07.2011 (Amiexure P/l) statmg it to be on her own request. In fact, the petitioner never made any application for tra.nsfer from her present place ofpostmg. Thus, the same is bad m law. Shri Sharma iiirther submits that the petitioner made a rcpresentation to the Collector, Surguja on 27.07.2011 (Asmexure ;P/3), which has not yet beeii decided. 2. Shri Thakun leamed Panel Lawyer appearing fbr the State/respondents submits that ifit is so, the representation ofthe petitioner which is pendmg consideration, •tto.e same shall be considered and decided as eariy as possible. 3. Iii view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a directiois to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation, as aforestated, as expeditiously as possible, on its own merits and perspective. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Ami.exure P/l) shall not be given efiect to m respect ofthe petitioner, till the representation ofthe petitioner is decided. Amxt Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge