Disposed

Arvind Kumar Kurram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Mar 2019WPS/1079/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought consideration for promotion that was allegedly denied in 2010 despite being senior to a junior who was promoted. The court directed the Directorate to explain the inaction without expressing an opinion on merits and disposed of the petition with a directive for fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's case regarding non-promotion in 2010 and communicate the decision within 3 months; allowed fresh representation.

Arvind Kumar Kurram Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1079 of 2019

¶5

Arvind Kumar Kurram S/o Late Shri Prem Singh Aged About 31 Years Posted As Assistant Grade II At ITI Maalkharoda, Police Station And Tahsil Maalkharoda District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Technical Education Man Power Planing Science And Technology Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh .

¶9

The Director, Directorate Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Superintendent Industrial Training Institute District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Shri Akash Maheshwari Posted As Assistant Grade II Industrial Training Institute Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

07/03/2019

¶18

The only grievance, which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioner ought to had been considered for promotion on 04.10.2010, when his junior respondent No.5 was granted promotion, though it has been informed that the petitioner subsequently has been promoted in the year 2017. The issue now left is only whether the petitioner would have been entitled for promotion along with his immediate junior i.e. respondent No.5.

¶19

-2-

¶20

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, so far as his entitlement is concerned, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, as to why he was not considered for promotion in the year 2010 inspite of the petitioner being senior to the respondent No.5, who was promoted on 04.10.2010.

¶21

Let the respondent No.2 take a decision in this regard and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶22

In addition, the petitioner would also be entitled to make a fresh representation in respect of his grievance to the respondent No.2.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶26

Ved

Arvind Kumar Kurram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Kurram v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Ku. Anita Rai ( Now Married Smt. Anita Daniel) Vs State of Chhattigarh

Pawan Gayakwad Vs Krishi Yantri, Karyalaya Sahayak Krishi Yantri, Agriculture Department

Khan Waquaruzzaman Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr.D.J.Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Mamta Borkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Bagade Vs State of Chhattisgarh