G. R. Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 175 of 2016

1. G. R. Sahu S/o Late Shri Punarad Sahu, Aged About 61 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As The Assistant Commissioner, Office Of The Commissioner, Directorate Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Indravati Bhawan, Block- D, Grond Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Badrish Sukhdeve, S/o Late Shri M.L. Sukhdeve, Aged About 49 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commissioner, 61, Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Commissioner, Directorate Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Indravati Bhawan, Block- D, Ground Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Shri Jitendra Gupta, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Shri A. R. Navrang, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As The Deputy Commissioner, Office Of The Commissioner, Directorate Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Indravati Bhawan, Block- D, Grond Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For State/ Respondents No.1 & 2 :

Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. A.G.

For Respondent No.3 :

Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.

For Respondent No.4 :

Mr. Amrito Das and Mr. P. Acharya, Advocates.

-2S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 22/07/2016 Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though this petition was earlier admitted for hearing, in view of the reply of PSC that certain recommendations have now been made to the State Government, it is submitted that the matter at this stage may be disposed off with the direction to the State Government to consider the matter.

2. Taking into consideration that on 22.12.2014, Public Service Commission has made certain recommendations to the State Government, at this stage, in view of the prayer made by the petitioners, the petition is disposed off with the direction that the State Government may consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion. While taking decision, recommendation of the PSC shall also be kept in view.

3. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha