Dr.Smt.Chandra Kiran Rohleder v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P. fSI N0.

U 03 of 2015 Dr. Smt. Chandra Kiran Rohleder, PETITIONER wife of Dr.

Amrit Lal Rohleder, aged about 50 years, R/o. Village •^'o Kutela, Post Saraipali, P.S.

Saraipali, District Mahasamund ?cs) .^®^ i^"^ .^ ^^ (C.G.),

VERSUS

State of Chhattisgarh, Through :

RESPONDENTS:

Secretary, Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), Under Secretary, Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), Director, Health Department, 3.

Directorate, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), 4.

Chief Medical Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund / (C.G.), 5.

Block Medical Officer, Block Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.),

?

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

"^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 403 of 2015 PETITIONER Dr. Smt. Chandra Kiran Rohleder

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others ^- Shri Raghavendra Pradhan,counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, DeputyA.G. forthe State.

WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O RD E R (09.02.2015) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 transferring the petitioner, who is working as Health Officer from Community Health Centre, Saraipati, district Mahasamund to Community Health Centre, Pithora, district Mahasamund. By the same order, the husband of the petitioner also been transferred from Community Health Centre, Saraipali, district Mahasamund to Community Health Centre, Pithora, district Mahasamund, namely the same place where the petitioner has been transferred.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner or her husband had given any such option for their posting at

<,?

vs > '-i\ ;K W -f ''^ Community Health Centre, Pithora nor they were called for counselling, but yet in the garb of rationatization policy the petitioner has been transferred.

He submits that the petitioner has hardly completed one year and five months of service in her present place of posting and therefore on this ground alone the transfer order is bad in the eye of law.

He further submits that at this stage, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with libei'ty to approaeh respondent No.1 by way of (- appropriate representation and in turn respondent No.1 may be directed to decide the same within a particular time-frame. 3.

Opposing~'the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, it been argued by the counsel for the respondents/State? that though the petitioner has not given any option, under the rationalization policy the State has enough power. to transfer the petitioner from one place to another considering the need of her services.

He argued that by the order impugned both the husband and wife have been transferred to Community Health Centre, Pithora and therefore, in all fairness the petitioner should comply the transfer order. He, however, submits that the State has no objection if the representation of the petitioner is decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

4.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. In the eventuality of the petitioner filing a

^ representation before respondent No.1 detailing her grievances therein along with a copy of this order and writ petition, respondent No.1 is expected to decide the same strictly in accordance with law considering all the aspects of the case, expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.

Itis madKclear that this Court not made any observation on the merits ofthe case and respondent No.1 would be at liberty to pass the order strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge subbu