HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI G. MINHAJUDDIN, J. W.A.No.521 of 2011 Appellant Petitioner Smt. Anusuiya Mandavi, wife of Shri Kripa Ram Mandavi, caste Gond, aged about 32 years, resident of village Arjuni Badepara, Janpad Panchayat, Kanker, district Kanker C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Project Officer, integrated Child Development Project, Kanker, district North Bastar, Kanker C.G. 3. Janpad Panchayat, Kanker, through its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kanker. 4. Gram Panchayat Arjuni, through its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Arjuni, Kanker. 5. Smt. Asmotin Jain, wife of -, age and resident of is not known to the petitioner, presently working as Aanganbadi Worker, Gram Panchayat, Arjuni, Writ appeal under Section - 2(1) ofthe Chhattisaarh High Court (ADDeal to Divisjon Bench) Act, 2006 Present: Shri Sandeep Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. W.A.No.521 of 2011 JUDGMENT (29th November, 2011) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant Smt. Anusuiya Mandavi, has filed this intra Court appeal against the impugned order dated 17.10.2011 passed in W.P.S. No. 2267/2011. 3) The appellant/ petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:- "10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order No.16/Ma.Ba.Vi/ Estb./2010-11 Kanker dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2, being illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. 10.2. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent State authorities to pay the petitioner arrears of salary from the date of her joining at Badepara, Gram Panchayat Arjuni in the interest of justice. 10.3. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent State authorities to send the petitioner on training, as mentioned her appointment order, without any further delay. 10.4. Cost of the proceedings. W.A.No.521 of 2011 ^ 10.5. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court." 4) The petitioner, thus, in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 07.04.2011 whereby she was directed to join as Aanganbadi Worker atArjuni (Chhottepara). 5) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the entire submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find any ground warranting interference and as such, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 17.10.2011. 6) Shri Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has not given due weight to the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Aanganbadi Worker at Arjuni (Badepara). 7) Be that as it may, the fact remains that Arjuni (Badepara) and Arjuni (Chhottepara) are situated in the same village Arjuni. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that Aanganbadi Workers posted at Arjuni (Badepara) and Arjuni (Chhottepara) are entitled to get the same amount of salary and allowances. It also could not be disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that Aanganbadi Workers at both the places are required to perform the same duties. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.10.2011 which may warrant interference in this intra Courtappeal. FT W.A.No.521 of 2011 9) As we do not find any ground warranting interference in this infra Court appeal, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- G. Miahajuddin Judge nimml