;SINIItE iEi£§-fl ?^s;, %^^t«.j-£ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. ^0^^/2011 PETITIONER ^,-< ^j^ ^<0>°° ^ ^^ ^c^ \> ^ RESPONDENTS Tabindra Kumar Lamba, S/o Late Shri Roshan Lal Lamba, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Anandgaon, Tahsil Berla, Block- Berla, Distt.-Dyrg (C.G.) post as N.M.A. medical Assistant (Non Medical Assistant) at Community Health Centre Berla, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary Health and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION 6F INDIA PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HiGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON (S) No. 6054_OF_2011 Tabindra Kumar Lamba Versus State of Chhattlsgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Slngie Bench : Hon'b!e Shri Satish K. Agnihotri,'j\ ^' 4. ashoK Present:- Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate for the petitioiier. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State.- ORDER (Passed on this 13th day of October, 2011) The petltioner impugns the order dated 15 Juiy, 2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner, working as N.MA. at Community Heaith Centre, Beria, has been transferred to Primary Heaith Centre, Khandsara (Bemetara), on the ground that the order';"was not passed by a. competent authority i.e. the Collector, in accordance with the policy declsion dated 13 June, 201 1. jt appears that the transfer order has been approved by the Collector, though the same has been passed by the Chief JVSedicai & Health Cfficer, Durg. The petitloner has chosen to approach this Court after more than two and half months, thus, the importance of questloning the' transfer order does not survive, as it appears that the transfer has been chaiienged on account of the fact that in some cases, the transfer Issued by non-conipetent officer, has been canceljed. If the transfer order has been complied vvith, there is no question of reconsidering the vaJidlty of the same. However, if.it is stili not compiied with, the same shal! not be given effect tg.and a fresh order may bepassed. The transfer is an inddence of service and the petitloner, in all matters Is not likeiyto suffer, ifthe petitioner has already accepted by joinirsg the new place of postlng. Thus, at this stage, it is not properto examine the legality and vaiidity ofthe impugned transfer order. As a resuit, If the petitioner has already not been reileved, the transfer order 15 Juiy. 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect ofths petitioner, shaii not be given effect to, untiS a fresh order Is passed by the competent authority In publlc interest and in administrative exigency. r Accordingiy, the vvrit petition disposed of. No order asto costs. sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge