“m; ® $3mw @Qmh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA’I‘URE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) NO. agg\ /2011 (/V PETITIONER Smt Saroj Dhruv W/o Shri Pawan Dhruv, Caste Gond, aged about 34 years, Occupation Service, at posted (A.N.M.) Community Health Center, t Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSU S RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Family and Health Welfare Departmen D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur \ (co) The Directorate, Health and Family Welfare Department Old Nurses Hostel, Near Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 3) The District Collector, Mahasamund, Dist' Mahasamund (co) 4 The Chief Medical Officer, Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund (C.G.) The Block Medical Officer, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (co) t i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ PETITIONER : Smt. Saroj Dhruv. VERSUS RESPONDENTS amm‘ Pm‘WTmN UNDER ARTICI,,E 226 OF THE CONSITI'UTION OF INDIé SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: HK‘zH CGURT OF CHEATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4321 of 2011 State of Chhattisgarh & O1hers. Shri S.K.Dadsenm Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Panel Lawyar for the State/rospondents. ORDER ORAL) (Passed 0:1 05 day of August, 201 1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Auxiliary Nume Midwife at Community Health Centre; Sarainali‘ has been transferred to Sub Health Centre? Kauhakuda. Block Pithora, Vide order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/i) stating it to be on her own request. In fact, the petitioner never made any application for transfer ii‘om her present place of posting. Thus, the same is bad in law. Shn' Dadsena further submits that the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 5. on 30.07201 1 (Annexure Pf2) which has not yet been decided. Shri Sao, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that if it is so. the representation of the petitioner which is pending consideration, the same shaii be considered and decided as early as possible. in View of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction 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 impugied order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) shall not be given effect to in respect of the petitioner, till the representation ofthe petitioner is decided. Sd/— : Satish K. Agnihotri J t Judge ne“ni... / ‘ fv