/>€' L.\r'" SV-S sR'i Hi^?J ^srs' •».J v S IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR / ~7~ Petttiima No.'_l±_/2005 Writ Petitiioa No; PETITIONER ^ ^ <?>' .^ ^ ^ ^'/ ^/^y v-^? y \0 ^ Stst. L&ta. Singh (Lata Markain) W/ o Shri Deep Sin^i Tlialmr, Aged about 30 years, Occupation- Service, Workil^ as Sub Engineer, PubUc Health and Engineerit^ Departiuent, Sub-Diwisuon No. 1, Bilaspur, RfoC/o Shri Saujay , Bheemgadfae, Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). .^h o.-" ^..••' ^••' ^y.- ':^./ './ -Veriiu- REBPONDEJiTra . vr-'..^,s\b^ ^-'~.si^>" ^ State of CUhattisgarh, 0° Tfarough Secretary, PubUc Healfh aad Engmeerii^ Department, Maatralaya, D.K.S.Bhamran, Raipur (C.G.). Executive Engineer, PubUc Health and Eugineering Department, Bilaspur Diwision, Bilaspur (C.G.). WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA FORISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC.OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. ^^—-^J •Y^S^- ./ g»^'oi^iicxi, u-nl'i-xitt, Rrti'iiyt HWMS'W ...(^:.^;..'9.o,.y.i.^..A 3K^?T q^tp (ljc|(j<s|^) ••—^200 tr ail^TWR-ii* a..rii^sT**f >r V- s^TTW^fcr SII^CT <nT<rfc54)'T-Rl*itf5lT^'t^*^^Rit$i'( ^3i)^T3irt?r Sarrra fbr aourt 05.09.2005 Mr. Prashant Jayaswai, Sr. for the petitioner. Mr. Akhi! Agrawal, learned respondents. Heard. Learned counsel forthe a representation to the authorities sympathetically. Learned counset appearing fc) It is expectedthat when the make a representation to the authoriti^s carefully and they should pass the orif the grievances ofthe petitioner. Eve< an Incidence of service, the tiarassment, trouble and demorallzind employee's children should also be l^ef In view of the above, the r^i representation, which has been dated 23.08.2005 (Annexure P-3), wit receipt of copy ofthe order- In the meantime, the petitionej !n view ofthe foregoing, the p| Accordingly, all pending A+ocate with Mr. Ali Asgar, leamed counsel Pstiei Lawyer for the State of Chhattisgarh pbtiticlner seeks a direction ofthis Courtto make oonsidering the case 6f the petitioner authoilties the respondents have no objection. has granted liberty to an employee to >, the authorities should examine the case ler after applying the mind and looking into otherwise,. in case oftransfer, though it is are expected to keep in mind the effect on the empioyee. Education ofthe spt in mind. spondents are directed to consider the in the Office of Assistant Engineer hin a period of fourweeks from the date of rec^ived may not be disturbed forfourweeks. itition stands disposed of. applKjations also stand disposed qf .,-