Smt. Meena Dhruw v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3599 of 2016 • Smt. Meena Dhruw W/o Shri Dr. D.K. Dhruw, Aged About 42 Years Rural Health Coordinator ( Woman), Presently Posted At Up Swasthya Kendra Marauda, Community Health Centre Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), R/o Village Marauda, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Director, Health & Family Welfare Department, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Gariyaband, Distt. Gariyaband, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Ku. Devki Chandravanshi, Rural Health Coordinator ( Woman), Presently Posted At Up Swasthya Kendra Ghumrapdar, Mainpur, District Gariyaband, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. Govt. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 10/08/2016 Heard.

1.

The petitioner has challenged the transfer order on the ground that he has been transferred with malafide intention to accommodate respondent No.6. Further submission is that the petitioner has personal family difficulty in as much as she has to maintain five children of his brother, who have been disowned by his brother and one of the children requires treatment at Raipur, therefore, if the

petitioner is transferred to a distance of 45 km away from the present place of posting, she will suffer severe hardship. 2.

It has not been mentioned anywhere in the petition as to how long the petitioner has been remained posted at the present place of posting. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the petitioner remained posted at the present place since long. If that be so, it cannot be said that the transferring authority had any malafide intention to accommodate respondent No.6 in place of the petitioner. The petitioner has been transferred to a distance of only 45 km. 3.

All other grounds are of personal family difficulty, which cannot be examined in the Court, therefore, no ground is made out to warrant interference. The petitioner, however, may submit representation only on the ground of personal difficulty.

4.

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra