WPS/5609/2012 of Hema Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 27 December 2012

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through theSecretary, Department of Women andChild Development,Mantralaya,NayaRaipur,ThanaMandirHasod,PostOfficeMantralaya,DistrictRaipur,ChhattisgarhSecretary, Department of Women andChild Development,Mantralaya,NayaRaipur,ThanaMandirHasod,PostOfficeMantralaya,DistrictRaipur,Chhattisgarh

2. CollectorSukma,CollectorateOffice,Sukma, District Sukma, ChhattisgarhSukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh3.District Women and Child DevelopmentOfficer,Sukma,DistrictSukma,ChhattisgarhOfficer,Sukma,DistrictSukma,Chhattisgarh

4..ProjsctOfficer,AkeekritBaalVikasPariyojna,Sukma,DistrictSukma,ChhattisgarhPariyojna,Sukma,DistrictSukma,Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAFOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUSAND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS, DIRECTION ORDIRBCTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS

(1) ^-PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERAs shown in the cause title (Vf'PARTICULARS OFTHE RESPONDENTSAs shown in'the cause title.As shown in'the cause title.

(3).PARTICULARS OF THE ORDERS AGAINST WHICH THE PETITIONIS IV1ADE

The petitioner by way of the instant petition is not challenging anyparticular order issued by the respondent authorities but have sought AiTinto l5^^1t3v6cate ''^

HiGH COURT OF CHKATTISSARH. BIU

W.P.SSS No.of 2012

;R

Hema Banjare.

of Chhattlsgarh and others,

Shri Amrito Das, counsel for the petitioner.Shri Satish Gupta, Govi. Advocate for Ihe StaSe.

S^QLE EENCH:HON'BLE SHR1 FRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J.fnu7Hn^ft^'S\ 'n ^ ^^vi^?

Learned Petiiloner seeks a directlon 5o the respondents to execute thetransfer order dated 30?11f'2011 whereby sbs I'.as been transfen-ed froni Sukm-ato Bliaigarh,

(2) Learned counsei for the petitioner woiiid submiS that ihe order dated30/11/2011 is stji' 'in force as K has nefther been wifhdravvn nor rnodifieu,however, the said order has not been executed and t'ne petitimer has not beenrelieved for submitting joining at Ihe transferred piace of postlng. He wouidsubrnit that petitioner's representation for refeving her to join a1 the transferredpiaae of posting has nof been decided. He would further submit thaf Iherespondents-authorities are deliberatety delaying the prooess of reiievlng thepetitioner and she apprehends that someone s'se may be posted at the placewhere the Detitioner has been fransferred.

(3) The Supreme Court, in Sreedam CaSidra Ghosh Vs.of &Others reported in (19SS) 1Q Spe-5S7 has he'id that a direction Tor enforoemeniof executive orders mav i;e tesued bv the Court

(4) Acoordingly; the respondents. 3 is fiireoted to ensure tliat ;he petitionerioins[the]oiace[of]Dostinq[a!]Bitaiaarh, as dirscted bv the order da?ed 30^11/2011(Annexure P/1) fQrthwith, w'rthina period of fwo wae'is frrirn the date of receiutof copy of this order.

(5) in view of the above, the petition is aiiowed to the above extent. No orderasto costs.

Certifiea' copy today.

Prashant Kumar MishraJudge