Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 897 of 2021 Sunil Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Ramadhar Yadav, Aged About 48 Years Working As Supervisor, District Cooperative Central Bank, Branch Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.

Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3.

Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4.

Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 5.

District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy G.A.

For Respondent No.5 :

Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate along with Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01/03/2021 1.

The limited grievance that the petitioner has in the present writ petition is the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Manager to the post of Supervisor.

2.

According to the petitioner there is no any impediment as such by which the promotion of the petitioner inspite of his being fully eligible and entitled for the same to be denied or withheld. According to the petitioner, there is no departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner, nor is there any criminal case pending against the petitioner to his knowledge and neither is there any punishment order in operation on the basis of which also the promotion could have been deferred by the respondents.

3.

The petitioner submits that he has already made a detailed representation in this regard to the respondent No.5, but till date the same has not been decided. The further contention of the petitioner is that meanwhile on 16.03.2017 a DPC was convened and many similarly placed persons have been promoted from the post of Manager to the Supervisor, however the claim of the petitioner has been ignored.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5-Bank submits that since his representation is already pending consideration, the authorities shall consider the same in accordance with the Rules and the Service Regulations governing the field, so far as the promotion which the petitioner is claiming for.

5.

In view of the submissions made by the respondent No.5, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent No.5 to ensure that the representation, which the petitioner has made vide Annexure P/10, be decided at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this

order. In addition the petitioner would also be entitled for making a fresh representation to the respondent No.5.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved