High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2406/2017disposed off

B.L.Yadav v. Food Corporation Of India

2017-06-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2406 of 2017 B.L.Yadav S/o Late Pilu Ram Yadav, Aged About 61 Years Retd. Assistant Grade II (Depot) Food Corporation Of India, FSD, Mandirhasoud, Raipur, R/o House No. 5, Basant Park, New Purena, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, 492001 (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Food Corporation Of India Through : Managing Director, 16 - 20, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ( Reviewing Authority ).

2. The Executive Director ( W Z ), Food Corporation Of India Zonal Office ( West ), F C I New Building, Datta Pada Road, Rajendra Nagar, Borivilli, ( East ), Mumbai 400066 ( Appellate Authority ).

3. Assistant General Manager ( Pers ), Food Corporation Of India, Raipur Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur 492004 ( Disciplinary Authority ).

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate For FCI :

Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate, on advance copy Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 19/06/2017 Heard.

1. The grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated through this petition is that though the petitioner was found fit for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Grade-I, till date, the promotion has not been granted to the petitioner.

2. The pleadings and documents, which have been attached with the petition, show that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the next higher post but as the departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner, recommendations were kept in sealed cover. An order of penalty of recovery of Rs.2,25,000/- was passed against the petitioner on 20.05.2014.

3. It appears that the recommendations of the DPC finding the petitioner fit for promotion kept in sealed cover have either not been opened or if opened, not given effect to. In any case, the petitioner is in dark and does not know what is the fate of his case. The respondents should consider and decide his representation and pass speaking order with regard to the petitioner's claim.

4. Let it be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case, the petitioner's grievance is not redressed, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive the petition.

5. The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Rekha