Parmeshwari Kaiwartya v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 888 of 2016 • Parmeshwari Kaiwartya W/o Shri Pramod Kumar Kaiwartya, Aged About 36 Years Presently Working As A R.H.O. (Mahila) Primary Health Center Naila, Block Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh R/o Village & Post Bodsara, Tahsil Janjgir, Police Station, Naila District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Police Stiaton Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
4. The Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
5. Smt. Vidya Rathore, W/o Rajesh Rathore, Aged About 22 Years Presently Working As A R.H.O. Mahila Primary Health Center Saragaon, Block Bamhnidih, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :
Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate For State :
Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 01/12/2016 1.
This MCC has been filed by the applicant seeking modification of the order passed by this Court earlier on 19.08.2016.
2.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application for modification has been filed seeking a direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within a stipulated period because after seeking liberty by this Court, the petitioner has preferred the representation, which is pending before the State Government and not decided till date.
3.
This Court did not interfere with the transfer order, however, given liberty to the petitioner to prefer representation, therefore, this is no case for any modification of the order. However, it is to be observed that whenever a Government servant has filed the representation, the same should be considered and decided as early as possible.
4.
The MCC is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra