High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2753/2017disposed off

Smt. Meena Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-06-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2753 of 2017 Smt. Meena Gupta W/o Sobhran Ram Gupta, Aged About 45 Years D/o Shivnath Sao, Working As Aanganbadi Worker, R/o Village Pasupatipur, P. S. Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women & Child Development, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office & Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Collector, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh).

3. District Programme Officer, Women & Child Development Department, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh).

4. Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Pariyojna, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh).

5. Supervisor, Pasupatipur, Women & Child Development Department, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 30/06/2017 Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is similarly placed as an order passed by the Court in WPS No.1532 of 2017 on 30.03.2017 and prays for a similar order.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 13.01.2017, the petitioner has been transferred from Aanganbadi Centre, Bedripara to Aanganbadi Centre, Kaknesa on administrative ground. However, the petitioner has not yet been relieved to join the new place of posting. He further submits that once the order of transfer has

been passed, it is for the Government to ensure that it is complied with immediately. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sreedam Chandra Ghosh Vs. State of Assam & others, (1996) 10 SCC 567, in support of his contention that if the order is not complied with, a direction can be issued for enforcement thereof.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submit that if the transfer order dated 13.01.2017 is still in existence and has not been complied with, appropriate steps would be taken to comply with the order.

4. If the aforesaid transfer order is still in existence and no other order has been passed in respect of the petitioner, the Government is under an obligation to comply with the same at once. It is accordingly directed that the transfer order shall be complied with forthwith, within a period of two weeks.

5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (P.Sam Koshy) J U D G E Rekha