High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/693/2019disposed off

Anish Kumar Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-02-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 693 of 2019 Anish Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Ramnath Singh Thakur, aged About 43 Years, Presently Working As In-charge Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pandatarai, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Smt. Seema Bakshi, Presently Working As Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

4. Kheersagar Nayak Presently Working As Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

5. Bhupnedra Prasad Upadhyay, Presently Working As Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Gobranawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

6. Yaman Dewangan, Presently Working As Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For State :

Ms. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/02/2019

1. The substantive grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the non-consideration of the petitioner's claim for promotion from the post of Revenue Inspector to the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Category-B.

2. According to the petitioner, he undisputedly is senior to the private respondents, who have been promoted vide Annexure P/1 dated 21.08.2018. It is the further contention of the petitioner that till the

DPC was convened or till date, there is no disqualification for the petitioner for being considered for promotion in any manner. He further submits that against the order Annexure P/1, the petitioner had already filed a detailed representation vide Annexure P/6 dated 25.08.2018, 04.09.2018 and again on 07.01.2019, but the respondents till date have not taken any decision on the same.

3. Given the said facts, as submitted by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that let the respondents No.1 & 2 scrutinize the representations of the petitioner and also peruse the records and decide the same at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

4. The respondents while deciding the representations would take into consideration, as to why the petitioner has been left out from being promoted.

5. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to appraise the respondents No.1 & 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