Dr. Niranjana Gavel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9236 of 2019 Dr. Niranjana Gavel, D/o. Shri Nathu Lal Gavel, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Magar Para, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Additional Secretary, Chhattisgarh State, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondents :

Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 18.11.2019

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner passed out P.G. and according to the agreement after completion of the P.G. she has to work two years under the State Government. It is contended that the petitioner is working under the State Government i.e. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company, which is also a Government undertaking and by the impugned transfer order, the petitioner has been directed to be transferred to Medical College Ambikapur District Sarguja. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner is also working at CSEB Korba wherein the petitioner is posted; therefore, under the circumstances, the petitioner may be allowed to work at CSEB Korba. It is further contended that the petitioner has already made a representation i.e. Annexure P-4, which may be directed to be decided and the transfer of the petitioner may be canceled.

2. Without any observation on merit, since it has been contended that the husband of the petitioner is still working at CSEB and the petitioner has already made a representation, it is directed that the petitioner's representation shall be decided within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the petitioner may not be forced to comply with the transfer order dated 30.09.2019.

3. With such observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok