Dismissed

Harish Chandra Jadhaw v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Dec 2022WPS/8473/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired police officer, challenged the supersession order and delay in deciding his pending promotion representation. The Court directed the concerned officer to decide the petitioners representations expeditiously within four months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representations of petitioner dated 18.02.2020, in accordance with law, at the earliest preferably within a further period of 04 months from the date of rec

Harish Chandra Jadhaw Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 8473 of 2022

¶5

Harish Chandra Jadhaw S/o Late Shri Bhushanrao Jadhaw Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kuthrail, Post Manohara, Tahsil Dharsiva, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

------Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Director General of Police, Raipur, Police Headquarte, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Inspector General of Police Raipur Range, Raipur, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Inspector General of Police (Administration), Police Headquarter, Raipur, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Superintendent of Police, Baloda Bazaar, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Chetan Dubey, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Kabir Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

------- Respondents

¶16

(cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Adv. with Mr. Pranay Golchha, Advocate

¶18

For Respondent-State : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. Adv. General

¶19

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER

¶20

06/12/2022

¶21

Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset submits that petitioner approached this Court with limited grievance of not considering and deciding the representation of petitioner, pending since 2019. He submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. Petitioner along with Respondent No. 7 were considered for promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector but Respondent No. 7 has been promoted on the post of Assistant SubInspector on 19.07.2008. He contended that the order of promotion of Respondent No. 7 superseding the petitioner is erroneous because the petitioner has joined on the post of Assistant SubInspector on 16.07.2008, whereas the Respondent No. 7 joined on 19.07.2008 and therefore name of petitioner should have been

¶22

placed over and above Respondent No. 7 in the gradation list. He further submits, petitioner submitted representations on 08.03.2019 and 18.02.2020 before Respondent No. 2 but till date his representations are neither considered nor decided. In the meanwhile, petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2020. He submits that at this stage, grievance of petitioner would be redressed, if a direction be issued to Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of petitioner at the earliest.

¶23

On the other hand, learned State counsel though opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, however, she submits that if a direction is issued to Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the pending representations of petitioner, she is having no objection.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition.

¶25

Considering the given facts and circumstances of the case and limited prayer made before this Court by learned counsel for petitioner, of issuance of direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide the pending representations at the earliest, which is not opposed by learned State counsel, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representations of petitioner expeditiously.

¶26

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of petitioner dated 18.02.2020, in accordance with law, at the earliest preferably within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶27

Certified Copy as per rules.

¶28

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶29

/P a w a n

Harish Chandra Jadhaw v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra Jadhaw 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

Ramesh Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anita Sahu Vs Chief General Manager

Krishan Kumar Jhlariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrika Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dayaram Suryvanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh