Nivedita Paul v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1386 of 2021 1.

Nivedita Das W/o Shri S.K. Das Aged About 36 Years R/o Quarter No. 31a, Street 37, Sector 4, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2.

Namrata Upadhyay D/o Shri J.P. Upadhyay Aged About 34 Years R/o Quarter No. 5, Mahima Vihar Colony, Infront Of Yash Super Market, Maharana Pratap Chauk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3.

Smt. Arti Shriwas W/o Shri Ravindra Kumar Shriwas Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. Mig 05, Hasdeo Bihar Housing Board Colony, Janjgir Tehsil Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4.

Smt. Ranjeeta Toppo W/o Shri Umashankar Suryavanshi Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Rawabhata, Tiger Galki, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

5.

Anuj Roshan Toppo S/o Late Shri Martin Toppo Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Butanga, Tehsil Bagich, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6.

Akash Solanki S/o Shri Guruwant Solanki Aged About 36 Years R/o Sriraj Electricals, Radhakrishna Talkies Compound, Main Road Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.

Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited (Beej Bhawan) Ravigram (Telibandha), G.E. Road, Raipur, P.S. Telibandha, Tehsil And District Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3.

President Chhattisgarh State Beej Avam Krishi Vikash Nigam Limited (Beej Bhawan), Ravigram (Telibandha), G.E. Road, Raipur P.S. Telibandha, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4.

Deputy General Manager (Establishment), Chhattisgarh State Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited (Beej Bhawan), Ravigram (Telibandha), G.E. Road, Raipur P.S. Telibandha, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Pragya Pandey, Advocate For State :

Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.2 :

Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 02/03/2021 1.

The counsel for the petitioners submits that due to inadvertence the name of the petitioner No.1 has been wrongly got typed as "Nivedita Paul" instead of "Nivedita Das" and she prays for permission to carry out the necessary amendment.

2.

Prayer not opposed by the respondents. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. Let necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day itself.

3.

The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is the non-considering the claim of the petitioners, who are working on the post of Farm Manager for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Production).

4.

The contention of the petitioners is that the feeder post to the post of Deputy Manager is Senior Production Manager and Assistant

Manager and the petitioners, who are working on the post of Farm Manager are drawing the payscale equivalent to that of Senior Production Manager and therefore the post of Farm Manager also should have been treated to be the feeder post along with Senior Production and Assistant Manager for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Annexure P/6 submits that as early as in the year 2018 the respondents had ordered for constituting of a Committee for resolving the anomalies and discrepancies that has been raised by the petitioners. According to the petitioners thereafter there has been no further development and the Department would be convening a DPC very soon for filling up of the post of Deputy Manager and if a decision is not taken in the case of the petitioners on an early basis, they may be left aside from being considered for promotion.

6.

Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the representation of the petitioners along with the recommendations made by the Committee constituted in this regard was already part of agenda in the meeting of the Board of Directors that was convened on 27.02.2021. However, for some reasons the meting got adjourned and the said agenda so far as the petitioners' claim are concerned is still pending consideration before the Board of Directors and as and when the meeting would be convened, in all likelihood the decision would be taken by the Board of Directors. 7.

Given the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, this Court is of the opinion that the writ

petition at this juncture can be disposed of directing the respondent authorities to ensure that an early decision is taken on the agenda in respect of the petitioners' claim for being placed in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Production). 8.

It is expected that the Board of Directors shall take a decision at the earliest in order to ensure that the petitioners' claim does not get frustrated by any DPC that may be convened during the intervening period.

9.

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

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved