S.K. Sarkar v. State Of M.P. And ORS

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 159 of 2013 • S.K. Sarkar, S/o Shrikant Sarkar, Qr. No. DNK-54, Mana Camp Raipur ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of M.P., through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation Dept., State of M.P., Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.

2. Commandant, Rehabilitation Department, State of M.P., Mana Camp Dist. Raipur ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 22/06/2015

1. This writ petition was filed before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal in the year 1997 and was registered as OA No.62/97, on transfer to this Court it is re-registered and is now posted for final hearing.

2. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to promote him on the post of Assistant (Rehabilitation) Project Officer from the post of Camp Assistant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during his entire service career, the petitioner never got any promotion and he was made to retire on the post of Camp Assistant. He would submit that the petitioner did not even receive any stepping up/Kramonnati. He would draw attention of the Court to the document (AnnexureP/20 filed along with rejoinder to submit that despite

recommendation of the Commandant of Mana Camp, the petitioner's case was not considered. He would also submit that the petitioner submitted umpteen number of representations, however, none of them were considered during the petitioner's service tenure and eventually the petitioner has retired in November, 2004.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to at least consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically for whatever relief remains admissible to the petitioner despite his retirement.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that if any of the rightful claim of the petitioner remains pending to be considered in accordance with law, the same shall be decided.

6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event, the petitioner prefers fresh representation before the competent authority of the respondents raising his claim for grant of promotion/Kramonnati or appropriate pay scale, as the case may be, within a period of one month from today, the competent authority of the respondents shall consider and decide the same at the earliest, preferably, within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of representation.

Sd/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) JUDGE Barve