Nandlal Dhumketi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4242 of 2019 Nandlal Dhumketi S/o Late Bhainsingh Aged About 54 Years Posted As Training Superintendent, Government Industrial Training Institute, Daundi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Employment and Training Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Deputy Secretary Employment And Training Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Director Employment and Training Department, Indravati Bhawan, Block No. 4, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Daundi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

5. B.S. Dhurve Aged About 59 Years Working as Principal at Industrial Training Institute Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

6. Harshit Minj Aged About 55 Years Working as Principal at Industrial Training Institute, Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Upasna Mehta, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18.06.2019.

1. The grievance which the petitioner has raised in this petition is the promotion granted to the respondents No.5&6 on the post of Principal.

2. According to the petitioner, both the respondents No.5&6 are juniors to the petitioner as is evident from the gradation list which has been enclosed along with the writ petition, Annexure P/2, which shows the gradation list as on 01.04.2017. AS per the said gradation list, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No.16 whereas, the names of the respondents No.5&6 is reflected at serial Nos.17 and 20 respectively i.e. below the

-2petitioner's name, yet the petitioner has not been granted promotion, but the respondents No.5&6 have been granted promotion ahead of the petitioner. The petitioner has already made a detailed representation in this regard to the respondent No.3, however, no decision has been taken by the respondent No.3 till now in this regard.

3. Given the said facts that representation has been made and which is still pending, let the respondent No.3 take an appropriate decision on the said representation and decide the same within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner is not entitled for the promotion for any reason, the same should be intimated to him forthwith and in case if the petitioner has been denied promotion inadvertently, then appropriate corrective measures should also be taken at the earliest.

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