High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/2438/2003disposed off

Shesh Kumar Khatri v. C.G.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd.And ORS.

2017-11-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No.2438 of 2003 Shesh Kumar Kshatri, S/o Shri Dhruv Singh Kshatri, Aged about 47 years, Occupation Service and presently posted as Asstt. Project Ranger, Panabaras Project, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, Rajnandgaon Division, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, D-252/253, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Sunil Kumar Dewangan, Project Ranger, Kota Pandaria Pariyojana Mandal Bhainsajhar Parikshetra, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner:

Mr. Ashish Shrivastava and Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocates.

For Respondent No.1:

Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 09/11/2017

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted on the post of Project Manager and recommendation has also been made by the Department in his favour, despite that he has not been promoted and his representation has also not been considered and decided, whereas, respondent No.2, who does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and was junior to the petitioner, has been promoted.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the submission.

3. Be that as it may, since the petitioner's representation claiming

promotion on the post of Project Manager is pending consideration for a fairly long time, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to consider and decide the petitioner's case / representation strictly in accordance with law and in accordance with the Employees Service Regulations, 1984, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma