Kamlesh Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6889 of 2016 Kamlesh Kumar Sahu S/o Dhaniram Sahu, Aged About 34 Years Posted At Sub Health Centre, Devarikala, R/o Tendu Bhata Matia Via Katagi Tahsil Kasdol District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health Mahanadi Bhawan, Thana Naya Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Block Health Officer, Public Health Centre, Kasdol, Thana, Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

3. Jageshwar Verma, Posted At Public Health Centre, Kasdol, Thana Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri N.K. Malaviya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri R.K. Gupta, Dy. A.G.

S.B.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 20/12/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

The petitioner has challenged order dated 05.11.2016 and 22.10.2016 by which the petitioner asked to work at Primary Health Centre, Arjuni for discharging certain duties. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 20.07.2015 though he was transferred from Devrikala to Devri, that order was not given effect to, the petitioner continued at Devrikala and now, he is being attached at Arjuni for discharging certain duties. He submits that this is attachment which is not permissible under the Government circular dated 04.06.2001.

-23.

It appears that at the time when the order was passed on 20.10.2016, the petitioner was working at Devrikala, which shows that the petitioner has been directed to work at Arjuni. It is not that the petitioner is being attached without any work. In the exigency of services, he has been asked to work at Arjuni. Vide order dated 20.10.2016, the petitioner has been asked to handover charge to one Jageshwar Verma.

4.

The arrangement appears to be made within the block area by the Block Medical Officer and the petitioner is being shifted from one health centre to another health centre. This cannot be said to be an order of attachment without any work. Therefore, considering the exigency and that the petitioner's services are required in a Government health centre, I am not inclined to interfere with the order.

5.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha