Disposed

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

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2014WPS/5593/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing three writ petitions challenging cancellation of promotions against the State of Chhattisgarh and Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, the Court directed petitioners to file representations considering that a similarly placed employee received a regularization order. The interim promotions were maintained during the pendency of the representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to file representations within one month; authority to pass reasoned order within three months; interim relief maintained.

T.R. Janghela Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLASPUR 7

¶2

WRIT PETITION l0f\ NaS5"33oF 2007

¶3

PETITIONER T. R. Janghela, S/o Shri S.
L. Janghela, aged about47
years, presently posted as
Assistant Grade 1 at
Chhattisgarh Tourism
Board, Raipur, District
t ..^^^ Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh
through the Secretary
Department of Tourism,
Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan
Singh Bhawan, Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
2. Chhattisgarh Tourism Board,
Paryatan Bhawan, Indira
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, IWANDAIVIUS
PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLEJ/VRILOR WRITS
DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS.
The petitioner, named above, most respectfully submits as
under:-

¶4

-.f""

¶5

[13

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P.fS^ No.5571 of2007

¶7

PETITIONER Dilip Acharya

¶8

Versus

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh & another

¶11

W. P.fS^No. 5584 of 2007

PETITIONER

Deeplal Janghela

Versus

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & another

¶16

And

¶17

VJ.P.(S) No.5593 of 2007

PETITIONER

T.R. Janghela

Versus

RESPQNDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh & another

¶23

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶24

Preseht:Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

¶25

Shri A.S. Kachhawaha,counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(Passed on this 1st day 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

¶32

¶33

The petitioner namely; T.R. Janghela [W.R(S) No.5593 of 2007} was promotedfrom thepostof Assistant Grade-1 to the post of ProjectAssistant (YojnaSahayak)on 26-09-2006, however, this order was cancelted bytheimpugned orderdated 05-07-2007.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed copy of the order dated 23-06-2011, passed by therespondent Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Tourism BQard, djrecting that the earlier order of promotion in respect of Shri Vijay Parmar, whose promotion was also caneelled pn 05-07-2007, is maintained. Meaning therebythat theorder cancelling his promotion has been set at knot.

¶35

In view of the subsequent development, learned counsel for the petitioners would submjt 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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 representationsagainst 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

¶38

ll<

¶39

in accordancewithlawandshallpass a reasoned order on the representations within a period of three months thereafter.

¶40

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

¶41

reliefpassed earlierbythisCourtshall remain in operation.

¶42

It is made clear, ifthe occasion so arises, the petitioners would be atliberty to move afresh before this Court.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd//Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶45

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R. Janghela 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.

Dilip Acharya Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Deeplal Janghela Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.