← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/4602/2016disposed off

Surendra Ratre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-09-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4602 of 2016 Surendra Ratre S/o Shri Galbal Das Ratre, Aged About 48 Years R/o 1st Battalion C.A.F. Quarter No 17/24, Office Line Bhilai Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh The Secretary, Department Of Home Police , Secretariat, Mahandi Bhawan, New Raipr P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisarh

2. Additional Director General Of Police ( A. D. G. P.), Chhattisgarh Armed Force C.A.F. Police Headquarter, Near Mahandi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Inspector General Of Police A I.G.P. Telecommunication & Security, Police Headquarter, Near Mahandi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Assistant Inspector General Of Police A I.G.P. Telecommunication & Security, Police Headquarter, P.H.Q. Near Mahandi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. Commandant, 4th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force C.A.F. Mana Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State :

Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Order on Board 08/09/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

Grievance of the petitioner is that the consideration for promotion to the next higher post has been denied on the ground that in two ACRs, the petitioner

is possessed of "C" grading, whereas the State Government vide its order dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure P/5) has clearly stated that "C" grading will not be treated as adverse and earlier circular issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh dated 23.12.1998 has been specifically superseded.

2.

Prima facie, a perusal of the State Government's order shows that "C" grading is no longer treated as adverse entry and earlier circular of the State Government issued on 23.12.1998 has been superseded. The matter, therefore, requires consideration by respondent No.2.

3.

Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner prefers representation within a period of three weeks from today along with copy of order dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure P/5), the respondent No.2 shall take appropriate decision in the case of the petitioner for promotion within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

4.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tiwari