Smt. Savitri Mandavi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2669 of 2015 • Smt. Savitri Mandavi W/o Shri Jageshwar Singh Mandavi Aged About 62 years R/o Village Charama District North Bastar Kanker Ex Supervisor, Dept. Of Women & Child Development, Block Charma, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Directorate Women And Child Development, Part A Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattigarh

3. Collector Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

4. District Program Officer, Women Anc Child Development, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

5. Project Officer Integrated Women And Child Development Project, Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Shashank Thakur, GA Hon'ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board By 28/07/2015 1.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2.

The petitioner is seeking quashment of the order of removal from service vide Annexure-P-1 and is also praying for a direction to the

respondents to allow her application for voluntary retirement. 3.

Till the petitioner remains removed from service, prayer for a direction to accept her application for voluntary retirement cannot be allowed. To challenge the order (Annexure-P-1), the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the State Government. 4.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order (AnnexureP-1) within a period of 30 days from today. If such appeal is preferred, the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the same, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 6 months from today. In the event, any adverse order is passed, the petitioner would be at liberty to move afresh before this Court.

5.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Nirala