High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/456/2019disposed off

R.R. Pradhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-01-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 456 of 2019 R. R. Pradhan, S/o Late Shri Vishram Pradhan, Aged about 60 years, Asst. Grade-2, presently working as In charge Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent, Collectorate Jashpur, R/o. Ward No. 1 Kadamtoli, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Commissioner, Sarguja Division, District - Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh

3. Collector, Jashpur District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

4. Mrs. Sukhamti Tirkey wife of Shri A. Tirkey, Aged about 57 years, Assistant Grade -2, R/o Lambipara, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/01/2019

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though the petitioner is a senior and is fully eligible and competent for promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-II to the post of Assistant Superintendent, but the petitioner's case has been ignored and the respondent No.4, who is junior to the petitioner, has been promoted vide order dated 22.12.2018.

2. According to the petitioner, he has immediately raised an objection/representation vide Annexure P/10 on 29.12.2018 itself, questioning the promotion given to the respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, till date he has not been intimated at to why the petitioner has not been found fit for promotion.

3. Given the aforesaid factual matrix, as has been stated by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would serve if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation so filed by the petitioner on 29.12.2018 and decide the same by a speaking order clearly mentioning as to why the petitioner was not found fit for promotion.

4. Let this exercise be completed by the respondent No.2 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

5. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to appraise the respondent No.2, so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved