Allowed

Smt. Savitri Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2014WPS/6358/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a staff nurse facing transfer, challenged an order in a writ petition under Article 226. The court permitted withdrawal of the petition directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Petition withdrawn with liberty to file fresh representation; direction to respondent No.2 to decide representation within four weeks.

Smt. Savitri Sahu Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

C^ (5T)1

¶2

S.B. fService Matter)

¶3

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH)

¶4

WRIT PETITION(S) N0. ^3^ /2014.

PETITIONER:

^f^^s"

^S^N-^' -iaA--"

Smt.Savitri Sahu, wife ofG.P.Sahu, aged about 25 years, working as Staff Nurse, Community Health Center, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

versus

¶10

Respondents

¶11

/State of Chhattisgarh, Through

¶12

Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District 'Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Commissioner Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,

¶14

/ Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Divisional Joint Director, State Mental Hospital Premises, Sendri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

¶17

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶18

'••>.

¶19

^ £J

¶20

•Svss 'yi^idii, yTti'a'!?, RiMi'My

¶21

aOT^....W:Pra.'M.^^20t^

¶22

sn^i ^SRR < T^^f^y)

¶23

aK?l«R^.IH> wnan^igsw	^&TttGIVBLE SHRI JUSTICE Pt 05.12.2014	+i-yfd<fr[wii?if'8Ki<ft<!3)<di< ^a^rtsii^i tlTINKER DIWAKER—
	Shri C.J.K.Rao, counsel for Shri ShashankThakur, G.A. Challenge in the present wj 5.11.2014 (Anexure P-1) transferr as staff nurse from Community Janjgir-Champa to State Mental H(J	he petitioner. for the State. r
	Counsel for the petitioner sij been issued in mid session which husband of the petitioner is alsi recently mother-in-law of the pe	further submits that purppse offilin the petitioner is permitted to withdr repres'entation before the responi] may be issued to respondent No.2
	State counsel has no objec putforth by the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner petition with the aforesaid liberty. representation detailing his claimj before respondent No.2 within expected from the respondent Ne	further period of four weeks from
%ra^ ;- F	S/1-7/2()14-2.0S,(»0.

¶24

<».

¶25

¶26

^iTinwr, <siiiwr?, 'E5i<«iw^<

¶27

.^^.).s^^l[h..^ioi

¶28

wnan^sfflra No observation on the men this Court and thecompetent au] accordancewith ^law. ^>iyfp(41'fKina?'9fei<fl(ISKdi'i iiafensn^t ts ofthe case has been made by hority shall be at ^{liberty to act in} PritmkerDiwaker Juuge <i<

Smt. Savitri Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Ors.

Vishwanath Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Basant Kumar Joshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Teekam Chand Tatiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Hemant Kujur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.