Narendra Kumar Deshmukh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1899 of 2011 Narendra Kumar Deshmukh S/o Late J.R. Deshmukh, Aged about 50 years, Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Sub Engineer CEO Janpad Panchayat Patan Distt. Durg Cg ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Principal Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (C.G.)
3. Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Service, office of the Development Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, (C.G.) ---- Respondents WPS No. 1904 of 2011 • Sudesh Kumar Lamba S/o Late K.L. Lamba, Aged about 50 years, Occupation Service Presently Posted as Sub Engineer PIU-1 Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojana Collectorate Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Principal Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (C.G.)
3. Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Service, office of the Development Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, (C.G.) ---- Respondents WPS No. 1905 of 2011 Sudhir Kumar Tiwari, Aged about 47 years, S/o Late Radheyshyam Tiwari Sub-Engineer PIU-1 Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojana, Collectorate Raipur CG ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Principal Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C. G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :
Mr. N. K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Panicker, Advocate For State :
Ms. Sunita Jain, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/03/2020
1. Since the issued involved in present three writ petitions is same, therefore all these three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The nature of relief was for including the names of the petitioners in the gradation list of Assistant Engineer which was to be held very soon.
3. The return of the respondents would show that respondents have subsequently issued an order of promotion which is order dated 31.12.2012 and in the said order of promotion, the names of the petitioners are reflected and all the petitioners2 being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer.
4. Given the fact that petitioners have been promoted on the very next promotion process itself, this Court is of the opinion that relief sought for by the petitioners stands granted and grievance stands redressed.
5. In the light of the reply submitted by the respondents and petitioners having got the promotion subsequently the writ petition does not need any further adjudication.
6. With the aforesaid observations, all these three writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit