Manharan Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3129 of 2019

1. Manharan Lal S/o Late Soma Joseph Aged About 50 Years Working As Dispensary Servant, Govt, Ayurved Dispensary Seepat, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

2. Krishna Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Badri Prasad Dhruv Aged About 51 Years Working As Dispensary Servant, Govt. Ayurved Dispensary Pandhi, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Ayurved Yoga And Natural Medicine Unani, Siddh And Hoemopathy (Ayush) Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The District Ayurved Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Harish Kuntiya, Advocate For State :

Mr. Saleem Kazi, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 30/04/2019

1. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the petitioners have been working with the respondents as Class-IV employee on the post of Dispensary Servant Since last more than 25 years but till date they have not been considered for promotion in the Class-III category.

2. According to the petitioners in course of time the respondents have granted promotion to other similarly placed persons and many of

-2whom even juniors to the petitioners in service. According to the petitioners they otherwise fulfill all the eligibility criteria required for promotion from Class-IV to Class-III and there are vacancies still available in the Department and therefore the case of the petitioners be also considered in this regard.

3. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners and also consider the representations of the petitioners if any pending. While deciding the same, the respondent No. 2 shall specifically take into consideration the date of appointment of the petitioners and also scrutinize as to why the petitioners have been left out in the past and juniors to the petitioners have been granted promotion.

4. Let a decision be taken by respondent No. 2 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In addition, the petitioners would be entitled to make fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/-- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit/Rahul