← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/3953/2017disposed off

Vaibhav Kumar Meshram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-08-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3953 of 2017 Vaibhav Kumar Meshram S/o Shri Gyan Das Meshram, Aged About 36 Years R/o Amapara, Bhawani Chowk, Kanker Distt. U. B. Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director Panchayat, Secretariat Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri S.P.Kale, Dy.A.G. for the State.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 23/08/2017 Heard.

The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner was excluded from the consideration for promotion to the post of Lecturer, Panchayat on the basis of seniority. The representation was made but no decision was taken. The petitioner, then preferred representation before the Director, Panchayat and vide memo dated 08/09/2016, the Directorate also instructed the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Uttar Bastar to take necessary steps towards representation of the petitioner.

2.

It is submitted that no orders have been passed by the Chief Executive Officer either accepting or rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 3.

Considering that the representation of the petitioner evoked response of the Directorate, Panchayat who issued a memo to the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Uttar Bastar to decide the claim of the petitioner for promotion and even

then no decision has been taken, this petition, at this stage is required to be disposed off with a direction to respondent No.3 to take decision in terms of letter dated 08/09/2016 of the Directorate of Panchayat within a period of four weeks. Either the petitioner should be given promotion or if for any reason, his claim is not found tenable, respondent No.3 shall pass clear speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti