1 / 4 2026:CGHC:25667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4681 of 2026 Madhuri Tukaram Wasnik W/o Tarun Kumar Meshram Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted and Working As Inspector Nursing Staff, SHQ BSF Hospital, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. R/o Plot No. 41, Sai Mangalam Colony, Vijay Nagar, P.O. Gondiya, Distt. Gondiya (M.H.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through Commandant (Medical), Directorate General Border Security Force (Medical Directorate), East Block 9, Level 4, R.K. Puram, Sector 1, New Delhi. 2 - Deputy Inspector General Sector Head Quarter, Border Security Force, Sector 3 Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - DIG Medical/ M S Composite Hospital, Bsf, Kolkata, A.N. Block, Sector 5, Salt Lake, Kolkata, W.B. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents/UOI : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 23/06/2026 Heard. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.06.23 18:07:04 +0530 2 / 4 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is questioning the relieving order dated 03/06/2026 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner has been directed to join in compliance of the order dated 11/04/2025 by which she has been de-attached from SHQ BSF Raipur and posted at CH Kolkata. He would next submit that the petitioner is working as Inspector Nursing Staff and having a newborn baby of 1 year & 3 Months, therefore, she may be granted more breathing time to join the transferred place. 2. Learned counsel for the Respondent by referring to the Annexure- P/9 submits that earlier the writ petition filed by the present petitioner questioning the order dated 11/04/2025 was disposed of vide order dated 29/07/2025 bearing WPS No.7466 of 2025 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with respect to the petitioner’s de- attachment and there was a direction to take a decision and the order dated 11/04/2025 was directed to be kept in abeyance and presently after considering the case of the petitioner the respondents have passed the order impugned directing the petitioner to join the posting place by 05th of June, 2026. She would further submit that the order has been passed in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 29/07/2025 and though the order by which the petitioner was de-attached was passed on 11/04/2025 but till date she has not joined in the place of posting at Kolkata hence there is no illegality on the part of the respondents. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 / 4 4. From perusal of the documents it is apparent that the petitioner had earlier challenged the order dated 11.04.2025 by filing WPS No. 7466 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.07.2025 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner regarding her de-attachment and, till such consideration, the order dated 11.04.2025 was directed to remain in abeyance. 5. The record further reveals that, pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the competent authority considered the case of the petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order directing her to join at the place of posting. Thus, the impugned order is not an independent action but is a consequence of and in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was de-attached by order dated 11.04.2025 and, despite the same, she continued at the place of attachment on account of the interim protection granted by this Court. Once the respondents have considered her representation and taken a decision in terms of the order dated 29.07.2025, the petitioner cannot claim a vested right to continue at the place of attachment indefinitely. 6. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the impugned order suffers from mala fides, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction or violation of any statutory provision. Rather, the impugned order appears to have been passed after due consideration and in compliance with the directions issued by this Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or 4 / 4 procedural infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu