J? Eakmm {Qy BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION [s1 No. — F3 g1 OF 2009 J ' Smt. Geeta Ray, M. P. W. (Mahila Swastha-Karyakarta), W/o Shri Raj Kumar Ray, Aged about 39 years, R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Kahauggmda, Raigarh, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Through: Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) / 1] State of Chhattisgarh, // 2] The Chief Medical and Health Officer, District— Raigarh, Office at Bhagwanpur, Raigarh, Village— District— Raigarh (C.G.) / 3] Chanda Das, M. P. W., Primary Health Centre, Jurda, District 5‘ “; 4] Dr. H. S. Uraon, Chief Medical and ® Health Officer, District— Raigarh, Office at Village— Bhagwanpur, Raigarh, District— Raigarh (C.G.) Raigarh (C.G.)., .r/r WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. 1. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONERfS) : 5 ,-As mentioned in the cause title. 04/ g PETITIONER \ / g ‘£ N PCS mm 31mm (Wm Wmm WW wm ‘ $3imm ‘ QE FRYK§§KER §£WAKER SE : E$§PELE SHEE &E§$’§ ”39..a Earn Saxatogu 0.1m“ Snn Yashv wt $11”: 1 ‘9 1'1wa . ;. q haiku: , Cihalieixge in the pm: 28.2.2G‘GE9 (Annexum ' Pf 1) The petitionerwho is workt traigsfm‘md fmm Sub'lJkaJtJ Kukurc’ia, Primary Hsalth C Contention 0f ths cc onier impugrled has not bi but has {166:1} simgxly issue filed by ihe petitioxxer was dated 15.9.2008. He su't petitioner shelter of the o whereas, no such order e311 On the ether hai1d, c: I Oi‘éler impugmed has "been i: 311C} if. is merely a mists} mentiomrg t 1e 1mpuw1ed ( pursuairt to me rejection State fm'ther subrmfs C313fl§€ L idl DV‘; m Mex. 101 El e SSfLE pt Ls to the order dares} oassed by respondemt No.4 by which 1g as MPW (Annexure P/ 1} has been i Cenue Jmda to Shb Heath Lentre entre Loemg. unsel for the petitioner is male t1}. :en issued on. adminisfrative gToumi (i'as earLier W.P.g’?s; w No. 4-1 dismissed by E’his Court Vide order )miis that Whiie trailsiening the this Court has been faker: rder of {be issued. )unse} for the State submiis that sued omy “a admml teative exigency on the part of the authority €11 ader mat the same has been issued of earlier petition. Counsel for foe has not been ‘u ti 1a: the petitioner i2 ‘07 the *ium: ei i? f9 ? 1 ’ K WW WW Wm € ‘ w E? .3) ‘§.%;}[2009‘ amm (We) xwm«a&a&&a WWW @W‘ ( $WW aglia'ShEd with libéi arties submit that 1a thé imyugmed 61xs‘3daxing the facts tha ordm mpugn d Qatar‘ Wifh a at» a Lhonty to p9ss im‘gh arcisr (mly in the ééi,minisflative e’Xigency‘ It ls made clear tuat but has been aliractal to work at which is just 9 kms. from Primaxy transfemeé‘: to a far off piaca $ub Hgalth C6ntre Kukurda ,_ Health Cén’tre Loéing. frssh oréier oniy in adminiSU ty to thE Siam authorities to pass and cia‘cumsiazices of thé case and the submission of tha paties, 28.02.2069'passsd by msgondsnt No.2 1s sat asida liberty to ths respondent/S atiV€ exigancy. this Conn has not exyrsssed anv opinmn fer traILSiarmlig 111E: g atitiensr anci the, traEsfer cai} only be made 1'}: the adminisfratim: exigency. With the above abserv ,I x, ' Sdl- >’ Pritinker Diwaker ’ Judge mien, the petiiion smuds Gijsposed mm e E