Singk i3ench a7 n\ U’ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. £r678 /2004 PETITIONER q’\ WWQ /S’mt (Smt. Geeta G.R. Devnath), Rani Devnath aged about 46 years, daughter of NakuleShwar Sharma, ‘ Working as A.N.M. Community Health Centre, Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, / through : Secretary, Department of Health, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (x2. The Director, Department of Health, Raipur (C.G) ,3. The Chief Medical and / Health Officer, Raig‘arh. 4. The Block Medical Officer, Community health Centre, Gharghora, Block Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI / MANDAMUS ETC. \& ) {granitg W f) No 4678 2&04 mgzgwapb m gig? mat m W Han at}?! m wwm (WEI) mt #5? 31m ‘o‘mkvaahW %‘ f3??? #‘WRW ' EE: 31%? m’é‘a 24.02 .2005 Shri Roshan Dubey, Iearned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep’ Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State! respondents no. 1 to 4. Learned counsel for the etitioner submits that the petitioner is a nurse (A.N.M) in the Health D partment of State of Chhattisgarh. She was working in Community He Ith Center, Gharghora as a Staff Nurse. By order dated 09.08.2004 (An exure P-i) passed by the Block Medical Officer she was directed to join s Staff Nurse at Primary Health Center, Bahirkela. Learned counsel f rlthe petitioner refers to the document (Annexure P-1 1) which is an ord r dated 08.1 1 .2004 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Raigarh, in whi h it has been directed that the petitioner shall work in Gharghora until furt er directions. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is hat after passing of this order dated 08.11.2004 by the Superior thority, the order dated 09.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) stands automati ally suppressed (superseded), even after this the Block Medical Ofncer G arghora is not allowing the petitioner to work at Gharghora. On the last date of hear i.e. 14.1 .2004 this Court has observed the situation and learned couns l for the State had taken time to verify about the same from the concern d authorities. " ‘Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to clarify the situation as no response has be n received to the communication sent by the Office of the Accountant neral in this regard. lt is not only unfortunate, but ishighly surpri ng to note that even after passing of the LR RJ b5/35U-—i2/2600 50000 u i e 313 W, Wm, fwmgx WWgigg KWEG‘SE swm (aafgaw) ' Wr 11 faam ' W3 Wmm f7.“ i § E 3 135/3 SO 12/2000—w50,000. “L "emm‘zmW :‘f 'w $8?1 ._ 2 ,— mm am 311w order by an higher authority i.e., the Chief Medical Officer, Raigarh, the same is not.being respected by his subordinate authority i.e., the Block Medical Ofhcer, Gharghora. lt expected that the orders passed. by the higher authorities are complied nd duly respected by the lower authorities for due and proper functioning of the department. The Block Medical Ofticer who is arrayed as res’pon ent no.4 will take notice of this fact.‘ This petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction that the petitioner will file a represent tion before respondent no.3/ the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ra h and a copy to respondent no.4, within 15 days alongwith a copy of thi order and if such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of b the C.M.O., Raigarh within 15 days lt is expected that respondent no.4 ll comply with the orders passed by the higher authorities. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of at this stage. it is made clear that even after filing of the representation alongwith a copy of this order and dispos l of thesame, if respondent no.4 does not work in line, the matter shall e viewed seriously. Accordingly, M.W.P.4976 04 and l.A.No.9308/O4 for urgent hearing stand disposed of. C.C. as per rules. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha ' i Judge i i r i