Kumari Rajani Pinjani v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3645 of 2021

1. Kumari Rajani Pinjani D/o Late Shri Chandrapal Pinjani Aged About 50 Years Occupation Assistant General Manager Finance And Administration C.M.D.C / Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited Raipur Residence Shankar Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Mineral Resources Department , Government Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Manager Director C.M.D.C. Limited / Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Ayaz Naved, G.A.

For Resp. No. 2 :

Shri Yogendra Pandey on behalf of Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08.09.2021

1. Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the grievance of the petitioner as of now would be redressed if the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No. 1 to take a decision on the representation which is pending consideration before the respondent No. 1 since long.

-22. The grievance of the petitioner is that the non availability of promotional avenues to the petitioner in the light of the new set up which has been introduced in the respondent No. 2-Corporation, thereby the petitioner would lose her further promotional avenues for all time to come.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also aggrieved by the change in the nomenclature of the designation which the petitioner was earlier holding and what is now prescribed under new the set up.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent No. 2-Corporation, where the petitioner is discharging her duties, have already made a couple of recommendations in-favour of the petitioner seeking approval/modification in the set up to the respondent no. 1/ State, where the recommendations are still pending consideration and therefore an appropriate decision be taken at the earliest.

5. The further grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have further initiated steps for filling up of the promotional post in accordance with the new set which can cause a long term detriment to the interest of the petitioner and thus prays for an early decision by the respondent No.1 on her representation.

6. Considering the limited grievance that the petitioner has and the limited relief that the petitioner seeks, the present writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the respondent No. 1 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner at the earliest in

-3accordance with the law preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. The respondent while taking a decision, shall also take note of the recommendation made by the respondent No. 2 in this regard.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge J-