High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6168/2021disposed off

Rajesh Kumar Gajendra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-11-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6168 of 2021 • Rajesh Kumar Gajendra S/o Shri Pancham Singh Gajendra Aged About 58 Years R/o Girdhari Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Director, Urban Administration And Development, Through It's Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, Through - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

4. Municipal Corporation, Risali, Through - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Risali, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

5. Smt. Chanchal Sharma, Posted As Assistant Grade -I;

6. Dashrath Dhruv, Posted As Assistant Grade -I;

7. Smt. Shalini Gurau, Posted As Assistant Grade -I;

8. Smt. Koushalya Yadu Posted As Assistant Grade -I;

Respondents No. 5 to 8 Working In The office of Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 :- Mr. Avinash Singh, PL For Respondents No.3 & 4 :- Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 10/11/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, and the juniors, respondents No.5 to 8, have been promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-I but petitioner has not been promoted. He further submits that petitioner has already made representation vide Annexure P/3 dated

13.09.2021 and 29.09.2021, which has not been decided yet.

2. Be that as it may, respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

3. With the aforesaid observation / direction the instant writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit