P. D. Manikpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3365 of 2019 P. D. Manikpuri So Jivrakhan Das Manikpuri Aged About 61 Years R/o Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Secretary, Goverment Of Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralalya New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Commissioner Raipur, Division Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Deputy Commissioner Raipur, Division, Raipur, District Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Smt. Shashi Markam Posted As Assistant Grade -2, Through The Office, Of Deputy Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ishan Verma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/05/2019

1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1983 and since then the petitioner still continues to work on the same post i.e. LDC and his retirement is in the year 2020.

2. According to the petitioner there are still vacancies available on the promoted cadre i.e. of Upper Division Clerk and further there are some retirement also which has to take place in the current year and therefore the department may consider filling up of the vacant post from among the feeder cadre of LDC and the petitioner being a senior most in the said cadre of LDC would get the advantage of the promotion before his retirement.

3. Considering the limited grievance and the factual matrix of the case as has been narrated by the petitioner, let petitioner make a fresh representation to the respondent No. 3 who in turn may consider the grievance of the petitioner and decide the representation at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date the petitioner makes representation. Respondents while deciding the same, may consider the availability of vacancies, seniority of the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner has got a very short tenure of service left for superannuation.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit