Dismissed

Smt.Vibha Sahay v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2012WPS/8/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an ANM with a cancelled transfer, challenged an administrative order drawing her salary from a vacant post. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the petitioner had no legal right to insist on a specific office and citing Supreme Court precedents against utilizing judicial review for service grievances lacking specific legal obligations.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to direct the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation was dismissed.

Smt.Vibha Sahay Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

W. P. (S) No. 0% OF 2012.

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

Smt. Vibha Sahay,

¶6

W/o. Shri R. J. Sahay, aged about 40 years, A.N.M. l^--'"^da^sst Urban Family Welfare Centre ^.^•••rS^^"-'^WJE:^--""' Ramsagarpara, Raipur, District k-" Raipur (C. G.)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

¶9

RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, .

¶10

Through : The Secretary,

¶11

Health and Family Welfare

¶12

Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.)

¶13

¶14

Chief Medical and Health Officer,

¶15

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

¶17

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶18

The petitioner named above begs to submit as under:-

¶19

¶20

PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:

¶21

As given in the above cause title.

¶22

PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

¶23

i * - ^••-. e- .t< •t*ril" ii

¶24

As given in the above cause title.

¶25

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR

¶26

fc^^J

¶27

S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶28

Writ Petition (St No. 8/2012 PETITIONER : Smt.yibhaSahay

¶29

Versus

¶30

RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh andanother

¶31

ADpearance:

¶32

Shri Somtaint Verma, counsel for the petitloner. ShriYashwant Singh Thakur, Dy.A.0. for the State.

¶33

WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSflTUTION OFINDIA

¶34

ORALORDER (4.01.2012)

¶35

The petitioner who was working as ANM, Urban Family Welfare

¶36

Centre, Ramsagarpara, Raipurwas trai^ferred to Mainpur, Distrid: Raipur by an order dated 15/07/2011 which was later on caneelled on 26/09/2011. However, in the meanwhile another ANM was posted in her place, therefore after cancetlation of transfer.salary <tf the petitioner was directed to be drawn from a vacant post in the same cadre. It is ftis order of drawal of salary from a d'fferent post which has made ttie petitioner to filethis writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to decide her representaUon.

¶37

(2) The pefitioner has no legal right to insist that her salary be drawn from a particular office. In the matterof A.P. SRTC and others Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy and others, (2006) 3 SCC 674 and tn the matter of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology & Mining & Anr., 2008 AIR SCW 7233 ttie Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid dovm principles as to when the High Court, in exercise of Ite extra ordinary writ jurisdtetion, would issue direction exercising power of judicial review directing the authorities to consider representadon filed by an indh/klual. Unless the court is satisfled about the existence of legal right and corresponding obligation on the authority to consider the grievance raised in the representation, Uie High Court should reftain from passing an order for deciding the representation.

¶38

(3) In view of the above, no case for entertaining this writ petition is made out. ,'

¶39

'~~~~~~ ~ (4) ~lt is accorctlngty dlsmissed. Sd//Misbra Judge

¶40

T^-'

¶41

1sftr ?!i sit'E:;£iLSI-y^l4~:

¶42

ms^BfaiaswiiBia^iitfiiBiisiiauasffiffii

Smt.Vibha Sahay v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vibha Sahay v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.D. Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dashram Sai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Maha.Mahesh Yogi Ved.Vish.Kar.San.andORS Vs Maha.Mah.Yogi Ved.Vish.Regi.and Ors.

S.K.Mahale Vs Union of India and Ors.

C.G. Rajya Karamchari Sangh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.