SMT. MAYA DUBEY earlier MAYA SHARMA v. SHRI SONCHAND SAHU
CONT/12/2025 · 2025-01-07
Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 46785 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 46785 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:836
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 12 of 2025 • Smt. Maya Dubey Earlier Maya Sharma, W/o Shri Satish Dubey, Aged About 39 Years, Presently Working As Staff Nurse At District Hospital Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner/Applicant versus • Shri Sonchand Sahu, Director, Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board 07/01/2025
1. Heard.
2. This Court has passed the following order in Writ Petition (S) No.5908/2024 vide dated 23.09.2024 annexed as Annexure-C/1 :- Mr. C. J. K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G. A. for the State. Heard. Issue notice to respondents. Mr. Badgaiya accepts notice on behalf of State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred in the mid session. The petitioner is having two children studying at Class-7th and Class-1st and the petitioner also took
2 admission for the session 2024-25. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education Vs. O. Karuppa Thevan reported in 1994 SCC Suppl. (2)
666. State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that status quo as exists today shall be maintained by the parties. List this case after 6 weeks.
3. Perusal of aforesaid order shows that order of ‘status quo’ was passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner, as it was exits on the date of passing of the said order, i.e., on 23.09.2024.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that vide order dated 11.09.2024 petitioner was transferred from District Hospital Kabirdham to CIMS Bilaspur. Aforesaid
order was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP(S) No.5908/2024 on
18.09.2024. Order of ‘status quo’ was passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner on 23.09.2024 (Annexure-C/1). He further submits that on 26.09.2024, she filed an application (Annexure-C/2) informing the respondent authorities about the aforesaid order passed by this Court, but the same has been rejected vide Annexure-C/3 dated 19.12.2024.
5. When specific question was posed to the counsel for the petitioner that whether she has been relieved from the post of staff nurse in District Hospital Kabirdham or not, then he submits that she has not been relieved, as order of ‘status quo’ dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure-C/1) has been granted in her favour.
6. Perusal of Annexure-C/3 shows that representations filed by various employees of various hospitals of the State has been rejected by the common order dated 19.12.2024. Annexure-C/3 also shows that name of petitioner finds place at Serial No.6. Vide Annexure-C/3 dated 19.12.2024,
3 as mentioned in Column No.4, letter dated 04.10.2024 written by the Chief Medical and Health Officer Kabirdham to under Secretary health education has been rejected. Annexure-C/3 dated 19.12.2024 does not reflects that application (Annexure-C/2) dated 26.09.2024 filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
7. It was also informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not been relieved yet, therefore, facts shows in Annexure-C/3 does not establish that order of ‘status quo’ dated 23.09.2024 granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner has been disobeyed by respondents authorities, as such no case of contempt is made out. Hence, the instant contempt petition is dismissed.
8. However, liberty is left with the petitioner to file copy of order dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure-C/1), i.e., order of ‘status quo’, as afresh before the respondent authorities.
9. In view of above, the instant contempt petition stands disposed of. Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Date: 2025.01.08 12:26:03 +0530