Dismissed

Bheekham Lal Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2023WPS/148/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a writ petition concerning the petitioner's grievance over lack of promotion to Head Constable (Tradesman) over 23 years despite a similarly situated officer being promoted, allowed the petitioner to file a fresh representation with authorities directed to decide it within 45 days following specific rules and precedents, while expressly reserving judgment on the

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file fresh representation with respondents to decide it within 45 days pursuant to applicable rules and orders.

Bheekham Lal Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 148 of 2018

¶5

Bheekham Lal Yadav, S/o. Ramadheen Yadav, Aged about 45 Years, Post – R Trademam. R/o Labhbheta, Duriva, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Home, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, Durg (C.G.)

¶10

Superintendent of Police, Police Training School, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Adv.

¶13

For Respondents /State : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

02-08-2023

¶17

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable (Tradesman) vide order dated 22.03.2000. Since than he is working on the said post and he has never been provided opportunity for further promotion on the post of Head Constable (Tradesman), whereas, similarly situated constable have been provided such opportunity of promotion. It is further contended that representation filed by the petitioner in this regard also went in vain and, therefore, counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be

¶19

¶20

disposed of allowing the petitioner to file fresh representation for redressal of his grievances and the same may be directed to be decided by the competent authority within the stipulated time in light of the order passed by this Court in the case of Lekhram Shrivas Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & 1 others .

¶21

Learned counsel for the State have no objection to allow the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that if the petitioner files fresh representation for redressal of his grievances, then the same will be considered and decided by the respondent authorities in accordance with law /rules.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

It is grievance of the petitioner that he is appointed on the post of Constable (Tradesman) for more than 23 years, despite that he has not been considered for promotion on the post of Head Constable (Tradesman) whereas one other similarly situated Constable (Treadesman) namely Baidyanath Tiwari has already been promoted on the post of Head Constable (Tradesman) in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 1066 of 2005.

¶24

Be that as it may, if the petitioner files a fresh representation alongwith copy of this order before respondents No. 2 & 3 within a period of 15 days from today for redressal of his grievances, then respondents No. 2 & 3 shall consider & decide the representation filed by the petitioner for his promotion on the post of Head Constable (Tradesman) in accordance with

¶25

1 WPS No. 4247 of 2016 & other connected matters, decided on 22.07.2021

¶26

¶27

the applicable rules and regulation within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt / production of representation filed by the petitioner alongwith copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner is at liberty to file additional documents, if any, in support of his representation. In this regard, respondents No. 2 & 3 may also enlighten from the judgment rendered by this Court in WPS No. 1066 of 2005.

¶28

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶29

8 . With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(N.K.Chandravanshi) Judge

¶32

Amit/-

¶33

Bheekham Lal Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheekham Lal Yadav 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Pramoda Kumar Jena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bodhram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Meena Dandekar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuleshwar Thakur Vs Lilambar

Mahesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saraswati Shishu Mandir Yadunandan Nagar Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation