Ramlal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1771 of 2011 • Ramlal Sahu, aged about S/o Shri Punaram Sahu Assistant Grade II Janpad Panchayat Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)

2. Collector (Panchayat) District Rajnandgaon, Collectorate Office Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

3. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

5. Dy. Director Panchayat and Samaj Kalyan Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgoan (C.G.)

6. Smt. Pratima Dwivedi aged about 41 years W/o Shri S.P. Dwivedi Assistant Account Officer Janpad Panchayat Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) R/o Punam Colony Opp. Anand Mangal Bhawan Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate For State :

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 27.11.2018 1.

The present writ petition has been substantively filed claiming for quashment the seniority list dated 01.04.2008 as also promotion order dated

09.09.2008. As is reflected from relief(s) No. 10.1 to 10.3. 2.

Perusal of the return filed by the respondents would show that the respondent subsequently vide order dated 26.03.2012 (Annexure-R/3) which has been filed by respondent No.4 the seniority list dated 01.04.2008 and promotion order dated 19.09.2008 have both been cancelled. 3.

Thus, the substantive grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. The only issue that would be left is in respect of seniority to the petitioner and also considering the case of the petitioner for the next promotion post of Assistant Accounts Officer in accordance with the revised/corrected seniority list. Since the impugned order and the seniority list have been cancelled by the authorities the position as it stands would be as it stood prior to the issuance of two orders under challenge in the present writ petition. Therefore, it is expected that the respondents would act in accordance with seniority as it existed prior to 01.04.2008 or any other seniority list if any published by the department.

4.

Given the said facts, the present writ petitioner has become infructuous and is disposed off accordingly, reserving the right of the petitioner to assail any subsequent development or inaction on the part of the respondents by way of a fresh writ petition if need so arises. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge vatti