Ramkrishna Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5260 OF 2019
1. Ramkrishna Mishra S/o Late Shri N. Mishra Aged About 55 Years R/o Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Police Station Ctiy Kotwali, Tahsil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home / Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director General Of Police (DGP), Police Head Quarter PHQ, Near Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Inspector General Of Police (IGP) Office Of Inspector General Of Police, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur. Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Superintendent Of Police (SP) Office Of Superintendent Of Police (SP) Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
5. Subhash Das Deputy Superintendent Of Police (D.S.P.) Police Training Academy, Chandrakhuri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
6. Ajay Sharma Deputy Superintendent Of Police (D.S.P.) Office Of C.S.P. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :
Shri Abhishek Pandey and Ms. Aarti Manjhi, Advocates.
For Respondent-State :
Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 22.07.2019 1.
The limited grievance that the petitioner has in this petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondents to decide the representation which the petitioner has made on non consideration of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Inspector to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
2.
The contention of the petitioner is that, the respondents have in the year, 2018 promoted many juniors to the petitioner on the post of DSP inspite of petitioner being fully qualified and eligible for the said promotion, but he has been either sidelined or ignored. He has already made a representation to
the respondents on 10.06.2019 which till date has not been decided by the respondents. He further submits that except for a minor punishment that was imposed in the year, 2006, there is no major or minor punishments imposed against the petitioner in between with which the petitioner could have been denied promotion or denied consideration for promotion. 3.
Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the representation of the petitioner be considered and decided by the respondent No.2 after due verification of the records so far as promotion granted to the juniors ahead of the petitioner on the post of DSP is concerned. Let the respondent No.2 take a decision on the representation of the petitioner be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In addition, the petitioner would also have a liberty to file a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 within a period of 15 days from today.
4.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder