High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5703/2018disposed off

Siddheshwar Patanwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-08-31Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5703 of 2018 Siddheshwar Patanwar S/o Late K.N. Patanwar Aged About 62 Years Retired As Sub Engineer, Water Resources Department, R/o B-1/202, Dolphin Impress Vidhan Sabha Road, Mova, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Kabirdham DistrictKawardha, Chhattisgarh

5. Department Promotion Committee Through Chairman, Water Resourced Department, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate For State :

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 31/08/2018

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner though was considered for promotion by the DPC, but was not found suitable on nonavailability of the ACRs for a couple of years.

2. The ACRs for those years was with the department where the services of the petitioner were placed on deputation. Subsequently, the petitioner's ACRs for the relevant years have also been obtained, thereafter, an appropriate suitable action was supposed to be initiated by the department, which till date inspite of the representation being made have not been done by the respondents.

3. Given the aforesaid limited dispute, let the respondent No.1 scrutinize the case of the petitioner and if the petitioner is found to be suitable for promotion in accordance with the DPC which was held earlier, after scrutinizing the ACRs of all the relevant periods and if he is found suitable, appropriate orders be passed, and if he is not found suitable, then suitable intimation in this regard be given to the petitioner within a period of 60 days.

4. While considering the case of the petitioner, the authorities are supposed to take into account all the ACRs of the relevant periods.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved