(S) No. SLZW’?‘ /2009 / IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. _ Smt. Manorama Tiwari, W/oa Padam Kumar Tiwari, aged about 42 years, R/o. Village Tarri, In front of Ganesh Rice Mill, Post Patewa, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) :2) 3) :5) VERSUS / RESPONDENTS :1) State oi Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaly, Woman and Child Development Department, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) f State of M.P. through Secretary, Woman and Child Development Development Department Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) (Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, . Chhura, District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Department, Raipur (C.G.) dot AN Development District ' Raipur, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER / District Raipur (C.G.) 6% “707' SINGIE 3mm Department, Bhopal (C.G.) Director“ ‘ Woman and Child H§GH COURT 9%: CHHATTISGARH : BSL§£9UR WRIT PETiTiGN {S} NG.?243 GF 2$t3§ PETmONER Smt. Mancmma T§wari r Vei‘sus §E$PGNDENT5 State of Chhatiisgam ‘8: Gthers {Writ Petition under Fwticie 225 of the Cans’iitu‘tion of india} Sing§e Bench : Hon‘bie Shri' Satish K. Agmhctri, J. ?resent :- Shri Raje3h Kumar Shanna, counsel for thepe‘tiiionen Shri AV. Sridhar, Panei La»v§er for ‘the 3%ate. QREER GRAQ iPassed an this ‘63“ day of December, 213%9) ‘ A. With the consent bf Qeamedcoui’asel appeariag “for we pames, ' the petm'on is heard finai!y. 2. 5y this petition, ihe pe‘iitioner seek$ to qua5h the order datéa 1-8-2599 {Annexure — Pig pagsed by the Pmjeci $fficea‘, integrated Ghiid Weifare Fmject, Chura, Dizstrict Raipur, by which ihe-apwication u‘aied §$-5-2§09 submmed by the inemimweri for 'withdrawai of her resigna€ion Eethr submi‘aed in the yea! 1993, has been rejacted. 3. ’Leafned ccunsel appearing f0: the pe’siikmer submits that ire ihe yea? 1987 me petmoneu' was appointed a3 Anganbai Worker and wwked on we said pas: tm wing of resignation §etier in the year 'i§93. 0n accoamt- cf “Fmaneiag d§fficu§t§ea the §3e€itiener submmed af: a'p§3§§c:at§on dated 2§-5-2%9 fm‘ withdraws; of her resignaiion aepiieatiori submiited in the yea? 1993. The same was {ejecéed by the Prejeet m‘ficea", imegrafeci ’Jhiid Wei§are Projeet, {Ehwai Bisirict Reigns: by Olfder dated 1-8-2099 {Annexufe — W1} Thus, th§s g) t‘t‘iem “ $6 i have heard. ieamed‘ courisei aanearirag fey the games,‘ peru§ed the pheadings \ and the documents .agpended thereto. l€ is evident thai whiie passmg the wder dated 1-8-2a$$ (Annexure —P!1) the respendent auéhc¥i%ies have: cieaWy memiene& that afterrmceipi 0f the resiginatEan ie"xtef, ihe‘same was accemed and cne Smt. sham; Baa has beer: app§§nied an *ihe-post of £anga€1bai Karyakarta by order dated 12%4394. The pefiticner aisc eccep€ed ihe' fac? 0f raccemance ‘ cf resignation ietter and remained out o§ work afterrsdbmission éf resignatien ietier tiai’ ghe ewe an awake-don on 2e-5-2ws f0; withdrawai af her ,resignation appdcation submitted eariier.‘ Thus, the'petitioner has no gigEt k; withdraw die ‘ resignatioh appiicadan after. iaese ef about 48 yeens‘ There is do iiiegaiity'cr irifirm’ity in ’the impugned o’rder. The same is‘ jusi & preper and, dees {act warrent any ihierfeience o'f this Qourt. I In View of fes’egomg, the writ pedtien is dismissed at the motion stage itseif.