is- fc^i-'M.^ <c:'v'M'-'f '•" Ki-s^;Ja- f^/ @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHl WRIT PETITION fSI N0. SS^-T QF 2006 PETITIONER : ob,.. >"? .e" .'.'•••"^' .-i^ 1{S.O'' ^y '^- RESPONDENTS: ?-"ass'?";^ "^"y &^"~,Y6' M ^^ Sl CL6's,^ w •-' Neena Shandilya, aged about 35 years, Wife of Shri P. N. Shandilya, -^/v~ Posted as Multipurpose Health ^•- Worker, Female, in Sub Health Centre, Seoni, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1, State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Collector, District Bastar (C.G.). 3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.). 4. Dr. R. N. Netam Son of Not Known, aged about 57 years, Posted as Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). /5. The Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.). ^6. Ku. Vedwati Mandavi, D/o Not Known, aged about 28 years, Posted as Multipurpose Health Worker, Female, in Sub Health Centre, Heerapur, District Bastar (G,G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22^/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION ETC. XI-HC-78 +<I^CTI SfttTl^i 3^T^[Un?PT, BTflu'16, Rt<'ll'My ^M?.A^^.h.^20o£ 3TT^?T^iaw (lcltdc"^'iT) an^Tw R-ii+ (raTsn^TshHif 'y <c -l^ 5CTW: flf?ff sn^iT 7.8.2006:- Shri Bhaskar Payashi, couns|el Shri Satish Gupte, Depi|ity respondents No.1 to 3, on advance Heard both the counset. By the instant petition, the order dated 7th July 2006 whereb|y Heaith Centre, Seoni to Sub Health | The main grievance of the p^t at the present place on 9-5-2006 ii]i 4-5-2006 and within a short span o{ Sransferred. The petitioner is a lo^ been made based on bias as js joined at Seoni on 9-5-20(^ showing that on 18-5-2006 she Abhiyan at Sonarpal. When the| Sonarpal and she had joined question of remaining In the circumstances, that the petitioner may be allowed No.1 and he be directed to decide respondents No.1 to 3 has no objection Having heard learned counsjel facts and circumstances of the ca^ on the merit of the case, the pra^er petitloner is just, fair and reasonak(ie. to make a detailed representation] wher^as was 0(1 presentatSofiarpal learn4d °hl'i|id41-1 WRTt' ffffflS Ti^FRn; ^sif^ran^T for the petitioner. Govt. Advocate for the State/ |copy. Ipetih'oner has chatlenged her transfer she has been transferred from Sub pentre Heerapur. ^tittoner is that the petitioner had joined pursuance ofthetransfer order dated ' time i.e. 2 months she has again been |n/ paid emptoyee and the transfer has ^vident that the petitioner had already >, she was placed under suspension not present on duty in Gram Swaraj peUtioner was already relieved from 9-5-2006, therefore, thers was no 1 on 18-5-2006. counsel for the petitioner submitted |o make a repr^entatfon to respondent the same, to which learned counsel for |el for the parties, having regard to the te and without expressing any opinion ^er made by leamed counsel for the ». Therefore, the petiUoner is allowed along with a copy ofthis petition to P.T.O. h XI-HC-78 3ST '^l'illd'i), ^TflU'lii, fslivfiy^ 55 *II+ICTI sh*n^ ^ 200 3T1^?T iRq? (l^cl i^is<^ET) •m^r^rf^tRi' craTsnSRT^iTra- <.e Barw "»e. s^TTWHfN'sn^r ^ respondent N0.1 raising ail h6t" grlev today and in turn, respondent N6.1 WlfcPfrT WRTf ff fec^ T^TRTC ^ari^iTsn^r ^iiices willliii d pyriod of 10 dayo from shall decide the representation of the IpetiUoner withjn a period of 30 d^ys from the date of recetpt of the representation, after considering all accordance witti law. Tilt then, the ^ ^he points raised by the petitioner, in letltioner should not be relieved, if she has already not relieved. With the direction aforesaid, tlfre petition stands disposed of. ConsequenUy, M.(W.)P. No.3p03/2006 also stands disposed of. Parties are entiUed for certifie<|l copy ofthis order. Sdi- L.C.S.hg.cioo judgis ^ P.T.O. \