Disposed

Vijay Jamnik and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC31 Jul 2018WPS/6358/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning the promotion of two Assistant Engineers to Executive Engineer. The Court held that certain relief seeking promotion to Chief Engineer was infructuous as the post was vacant. It directed petitioners to file fresh representation for Executive Engineer, with the authority to decide expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file fresh representation for Executive Engineer; relief for Chief Engineer held infructuous.

Vijay Jamnik and Another Vs State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 6358 of 2010

¶5

Vijay Jamnik S/o Late L.A. Jamnik, aged about 45 years, R/o Shivshakti Bhawan, D.C.Road, Ambikapur, Working as Assistant Engineer (Design) Shyam Bajrang, Project Circle Ambikapur C.G.

¶6

Ramesh Kumar Bhimte S/o Late N.L. Bhimte, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Bilaspur, Working As Assistant Engineer, Water Recourses Deptt. Divisioin No. 2, Ramanujganj, Distt. Ambikapur C.G.

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Water Resources D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C.G.

¶10

Engineer In Chief Water Resources Deptt. Sihava Bhawan, Raipur C.G.

¶11

Secretary, General Administration Deptt Government Of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C.G.

¶12

Secretary, Deptt. Of Finance, Govt. Of Finance, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, D.K,s. Bhawan, Raipur CG

¶13

Shri Subodh Kuma Shrivastava, Retd. Chief Engineer Mahanadi Project Raipur, Currently working as Chief Engineer Mini Mata Bango Project Bilaspur C.G.

¶14

Shri R.N. Mishra, Retired Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Raipur, Currently Working As Chief Engineer Mahanadi, Godawari, Kachhar, Raipur, Distt. And Tah, Raipur C.G.

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For the Petitioners : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For the State/Res.No.1to5 : Shri R.K. Gupta, Dy. Advocate General For the Res. No.6 : Shri Anupam Sharma, Advocate For the Res. No. 5 : None ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta

Order On Board

31/07/2018

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶21

Deputy Advocate General pointed out that the relief No.(ii) has become infructuous because impugned order Annexure P/1 & Annexure P/2 were for only one year from the date 30/11/2009, no post of the Chief Engineer is lying vacant.

¶22

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that relief No. (ii) and (iv) have become infructuous as so far the relief No. (iii) regarding the promotion of the petitioners for the post of Executive Engineer, they may file fresh representation before the competent authority and the competent authority may decide such representation expeditiously.

¶23

The instant writ petition is disposed of on aforesaid observation.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge

¶26

Kamde

Vijay Jamnik and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Jamnik and Another 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

M.a.Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Suryakant Sarkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajit Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amarnath Katiyar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Jayant Kumar Sagar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dipak Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh