ESiS^.S c •\^Cj) °> IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 14-^ €> /2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : ^ Smt. P. Sahu,W/o. Shri R.P. Sahu, aged about 53 years, Suspended District Re-habitatfon Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Women, Child &Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Deputy Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Women, Child &Sodal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T fN^CT^T St)^|cb^^ 3^T ^ll^Krt^, ^Tn^l^Ko, f®ldl^y< ^^ RT q^^ ^I+I^IS ShHl^^c^^Jh^l^^ 200 3TT^r5^TT8iK^f?cT tJ|ie transfe4red tlie 13.4,2005 Shri Rakesh Kuniar Jhal Shn Akhil Agrawal, Paac By fhis writ petition habiUtation Officer, Bilaspu| propriety of order dated 2^ whereby she has been Lcaraed counsel for petitiouer was suspended on| filiiKg of fhe writ petitlon by but now she has been trao.sl further, submits that petitio|i( Intestiaal systeni aad she h^ Therefore, it is difficult for tl^ place. Moreover, fhe petitionei of LDC ia tlie sanie departine] may be aUowed to make a re^ aU her grievaaces aad respoi representation of fhe petitione|i of petitioner aiid the fact th^ saoie depai'taient at Bilaspijir respondents has no objection.| Having heard leame4 regard to fhe facts aad allowed to make a represent^ today to respondent No,2 chi^f<n^flTi Hi^<<iT^'*tel:^'<(^<-di< ^3T^T3TI^T coiuisel for the petitioner, y Lawyer for the State, petitioner, who is workiag as Re- ^ has questioued fhe legality and ^3.2005 issued by respondent No,2 froin Bilaspur to Jashpiir. jthe petitioner siibimts tliat earUer the groiincl of niisconduct aad after t}.ie petitioner, she has been reuistated, |en'ed to a far off place Jashpur, He etitio|ier is a lady sufferiiig froin Gastro 1s some ailment ia tlie food pipe also, (e petitioner to serve at such a clistaiit l-'s husbaiid is also workiag on the post it, In tlie cu'czunstances, the petitioner )resentation to respondent No.2 raisiag ident No.2 be du-ected to consider fhe syBipaflietically lookiiig to tlie ailaient it her hiisbaiid is also workiag in. tlie to which learaed counsel for fhe counsel for flie parties aad having circi^mstaiices of the case, tJie petitioner is ition witliin a period of ten days from r^isiag all her gnevaaces and in tuni XI-HC-22 w^r^r Sft^icb^f?cT h»»- <\..- ^-GC| ^s^l^l ^^|cb ^i^j^i^, ^Tn^4i<o, ?sidiy^< [?TM5|ch ^R; 200 ^T- f^^' 3:n^T^<TT^K^f?cT itito respondent No.2 is directed to| symLpafheticaAly after takiiig i|ito her withia aiiofher one inoib-fli representation ia accordaacej representation flie petitioner already been relieved, Witli fhe direction afore; Consequenfly, all tlie disposedof Cei-tified copy as per rul^s. <=hl^?^l41T1 ^J^i^T^te^iRl^dK ^3:rf^R'3n^T decide fhe representation of petitioner consideration tlie poiats raised by from tiie date of receipt of the with law. TIU the decision of tlie ^hould not be relieved, if she has uot ^aid, fhe petition staads disposed of. ^endiag M,W.P. & I,As are also staad Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge