Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44790 (CHH)

ANITA GARHEWAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/11460/2025 · 2025-09-25

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:49429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11460 of 2025 Anita Garhewal W/o Shri Shivcharan Garhewal, Aged About 38 Years Government Girls Middle School, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Directorate Of Public Instructions, Through Director, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 26.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned transfer order dated 12.09.2025 passed by respondent No.3, order dated 18.08.2025 and 04.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 4 whereby the grounds raised by the petitioner in her representation has not been considered. 2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is suffering from rare disease namely Trigeminal Neurology, therefore, respondents may be directed to decide her pending representation. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.26 15:04:48 +0530 2 3. Considering the submission and also considering well settled legal position of law that personal difficulty of a employee has to be considered by the employer not by Courts in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of SK Naushad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of India & Other 2020 (12) SCC 1. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to respondent No. 2 within a period of three weeks who in turn shall consider and decide the representation at the earliest within a further period of four week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh