Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 16]

Chattisgarh High Court

R.K. Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh 57 Wpc/3011/2018 ... on 12 December, 2018

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                             1

                                                                               NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 7276 of 2018

             R.K.Rajput S/o Late Shri Gulab Singh Rajput, aged about 54 years,
             Working as Sub-Engineer, Water Resource Department, Government of
             Chhattisgarh, Currently Posted at Takhatpur, R/o Sichai Colony, Tehsil
             Takhatpur, District Bilapsur (C.G.).
                                                                      ---Petitioner
                                            Versus
       1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resource
          Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
          (C.G.).
       2. Office of Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department, Sihawa
          Bhawan, Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.).
                                                                  ---Respondents

For petitioner : Shri Aman Tamboli, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12/12/2018

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that the petitioner who is working as Sub-Engineer and has experience of more than 30 years of service on the same post has been denied the benefit of one time promotion scheme floated by the State Government whereby the respondents had taken a policy decision as one time measure to promote all these Sub-Engineers (Civil) as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) on their completion of 30 years of service.

2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already completed 30 years of service, yet the name of the petitioner was not reflected in the promotion order Annexure - P/3 dated 05/10/2018. 2

3. Given the said submission so also taking note of the pleadings in the Writ Petition that still there are more than 177 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) lying vacant and the petitioner also has made a detailed representation in this regard to respondent No.2 vide Annexure - P/4, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order keeping in view the order of the State Government dated 03/08/2018 for promotion.

4. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off.

Sd/-


                                                             (P. Sam Koshy)
Sumit                                                            JUDGE