Disposed

Dilip Acharya v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2014WPS/5571/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh directed three petitioners, whose promotions were cancelled, to file representations for relief after a similarly placed employee's petition allowed the promotion. The interim relief granted in 2007 remains operational pending the competent authority's decision on the new representations.

What did the court decide?

Directions to file representations within one month; competent authority to pass reasoned order within three months; interim relief to remain operational.

Dilip Acharya Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR

¶2

-^ Ss~?/

¶3

WRIT PETITION (Gf) N0. OF 2007 PETITIONER Dilip Acharya,S/o, Shri A.K. Aacharya, aged about 39 years, presently posted as Swagatkarta at Chhattisgarh Tourism »^^ Board, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) <>?••' VERSUS ^'^RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Tourism, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) •A _—-•'l^ '-€y^'y.^ Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, S^V-' <l/^ Paryatan Bhawan, Indira o' Gandhi Marg Raipur (C.G) «% Through Managing Director Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, IV1ANDAIV1US PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS mRECTLON OR D1RECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS. The petitioner, named above, most respectfully submifs as under:-

¶4

dinmifrlt

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P.fS) No.5571 of 2007

PETITIONER

DilipAcharya

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh & another

W.P.fS)No.5584of2007

PETITIONER

Deeplal Janghela

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh & another

And

W.P.^No.5593of2007

PETITIONER

T.R. Janghela

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh & another

¶24

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶25

Preseht:Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Y.S. Thakur, DeputyAdvocate General for the State. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(Passed^{onthis1stday ofJuly,2014)}

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The petitioner namely; Dilip Acharya {W.P. (S) No.5571 of 2007} was promoted from the post of receptionist to Manager vide order dated 26-09-2006, however, his promotion has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 05-07-2007.

¶30

The petitioner namely; Deeplal Janghela {W.P. (S) No.5584 of 2007^ was promoted from the post of Steward to receptionist vide orderd ated 26-09-2006, however, his promotion has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 05-07-2007.

¶31

The petitioner namely; T.R. Janghela {1/KP.fS; A/o.5593 of 2007} Was promoted from the post of Assistant Grade-1 to the post of Project Assistant (Yojna Sahayak) on 26-09-2006, however, this order was cancelled by the impugned order dated 05-07-2007.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed copy of the order dated 23-06-2011, passed by the respondent Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, directing that the earlier order of promotion in respect of Shri Vijay Parmar, whose promotion was also cancelled on 05-07-2007, is maintained. Meaning thereby that the order cancelling his promotion has been set at knot.

¶33

5, In view of the subsequent development, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that each of the petitioners deserve similar treatment and their representations should be considered by the Chhattisgarh Tourism Board or by any other competent authority, in accordance with law.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that if any representation is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶35

In view of the above, it is directed that since representation of the similarly placed employee has already been considered by respondent No.2, the petitioners are allowed to prefer representations against the impugned order to be submitted within a period of one month from today and on such representations being filed, the same shall be dealt with by the competent authority

¶36

¶37

in accordance with law and shall pass a reasoned order on the representations within a period of three months thereafter.

¶38

Since the petitioners are enjoying interim relief from 2007, it is directed that during pendency of their representations, the interim

¶39

relief passed earlier by this Court shall remain in operation.

¶40

It is made clear, ifthe occasion so arises, the petitioners would be

¶41

at liberty to move afresh before this Court,

¶42

Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to

¶43

costs.

¶44

Sd//-

¶45

Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶46

Dilip Acharya v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Acharya v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Fertilizer Corp. of India Ltd. Vs Urvarak Karamchari Sangh and Anr.

C.G. Class Three Govt. Emp.Ass.Jashpur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Nemichand Guni Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Amrit Lal Bariha and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Deeplal Janghela Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

T.R. Janghela Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.