(H' c- ,r'i"o t IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1). ^- ') PETITIONER ^".-« --""...'/^ ^y?-' y -?.,--•*' y' \^^-y €^fy> ^" W.P. N0. 2~I~L3 /2Q06 Dr. K.K. Soni S/o Late Shri R.K. Soni Aged about 51 years, Employed as Sr. Veterinary Surgeon, Mobile Health Unit Office, C/o Dy. Director Veterinary Services, Durg Resident of: M.A.-l, Padumnagar, BHILAI-3, District: Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS - y 1. ..^,"^ 's?^ :.; A* 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department ofAgriculture (Aiiimal Husbandry) Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, RAIPUR The Director, Veterinary Services, RAIPUR, District-Raipur (C.G.) The Dy. Director, Veterinary Services, DURG. District-Durg (CG) ><S»-^:F' ^'\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION "?T—virs:sssii^f!&::'-i--. :^^^;s^^^^i^S^^;^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^i^^^^^§^^^!^i^; XI-HC-78 3n^5TqirR?iw gqT3TR?Tsh*iicn imcfT9»W=h 3:c?-^l'!<ld'i|,»TnM'IS,RKtl'yy ...&?.•.^'.-.p.ip.p.y^ 200^ aii^ri 4d* (Ii^3sr?T) ^iTWTifeTsn^r 14.S.200S i'v1r. Uttam Pandey, counsel i^ Mr. Satish Gupta, Deputy Go|i Heard both the counsel. The •case,;^ the petitioner Veterinarv Suraeon and oresentlv hel The petitioner is sufferina from heart] Hospital, Raipur ana has been advist >-al •Hi~—/^"+^^ '3"3t afl—f^t' onn^ /A (jcii.fc;U O i JVIaiL/ii. ^UUO {r\i Veterinary' S-lospital, Patsn, District' therefore. he wili not be sbie to worxl 'aciiities. as such. the Detitioner madfl authontles are not ciecialng tne repre| Learned counsei ror the pet| W.P.No. 2236/2006 in whicn is representation at the earliest. but the Therefore. learned counsel submits airected to decide ;he representatior they should tp,' to accommodate th faciiiiies are avaiiabie, to which iearr "as no objection. Having heard iearned counsei circumstances of the case; respondei the petitioner after considering the petitioner in his representation in an toaay. • With She direotion aforesaid, tl Consequently, f«1.(W, )P. No, ; Parties are entstled for oertifiec <bi<if<'<41-i tiiwTffteIA<Ri^&i< ^gif^irsn^T the Detitioner. •t. Advocate for t.he State./respondents. that initially he was appointed as Assistant is posted at fvlobile Health Unit, Ourg, since1999. Iproblem. Therefore. he took treatment in Escorts ad to tai<e rest. But he has been transferred vide 'iexure P-5) from Mobile i-1eaitii Unlt. Dura to Durg and there is no medicai faciiities ai Patsn. |at Patan on account of non-avaiiabiiity of meciicai a representation on 10-4-2006. The respondent ientatlon. tioner araued that the petltloner nas even filed ;ourt cfirected tlie respondents to decide the respondents are not deciding tfie representation. ijhat his iimited prayer is ihat the respondenis be considerlng the dlfficultles or the petitioner ana petitioner In any piace wnere proper medlcal id counsei sppearing for the State/respondents |for tne parties and having regard to tne facts and |t No.2 is directed to a'ecide the representation of jgrievances and medicai grounds raised by the ^bjective mgnner wlthin a psriod of 20 day's from pgtition stand^ dispo^sd o>, .1 —<; 110/2006 also stai-ids u'isposed Sd/- L.C.Bhadop Jlidge ^D^^ 1