Chain Singh Uikey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

WPS No. 2276 of 2016

¶3

2024:CGHC:40424

¶4

Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKITKUMAR KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date:2024.10.17 10:44:31 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 2276 of 2016

¶8

Chain Singh Uikey S/o Bhangar Singh, aged about 61 years, R/o Hasdeo Vihar, Collectorate Colony, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Department, Maanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

The Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Shahid Bhagat Singh Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

The Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶15

The Commissioner, Land Record, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, First Floor, Block No. 02 Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

6. Ajeet Pujari, Posted as Superintendent, Land Record, Office of Collector (Land Record), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner :- Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

¶19

2

¶20

WPS No. 2276 of 2016

¶21

For State-Respondents :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government No.1 to 5 Advocate. For Respondent No.6 :- None, though served.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶23

15/10/2024

¶24

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the impugned order dated 04.05.2016 by which respondent No.6 has been given promotion though he is junior to the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 04.05.2016 respondent No.6 has been promoted, but the petitioner’s case for promotion on the post of State Administrative Service (Junior Grade Pay Scale) i.e. Deputy Collector, was not considered and it was arbitrarily refused and the case was kept in the circulation.

¶26

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s details of immovable properties from the year 2011 to 2015 which is one of the benchmark for promotion was not available, therefore, the petitioner’s case was kept in circulation by the DPC and for that reason he could not be promoted on the post of State Administrative Service (Junior Grade Pay Scale) i.e. Deputy Collector.

¶27

3 WPS No. 2276 of 2016

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶29

It would be appropriate to notice paragraphs No.8 to 10 of the reply filed by the State-reply, which state as under:-

¶30

“8. It is further respectfully submitted that the name of the petitioner was again considered for promotion in the DPC held on 29.03.2016, but, due to non availability of the ACR of the year 2015 and the basic details of immovable properties of the petitioner from the year 2011 to 2015, the case of the petitioner was again kept in circulation by the DPC and he was not recommended for promotion. Copy of the minutes of the DPC held on 29.03.2016 is being filed herewith as Annexure R/2 .

¶31

It is respectfully submitted that based upon the recommendation made by the DPC held on 29.03.2016, the impugned order dated 04.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) was issued by which the respondent No.6 was granted promotion to the post of State Administrative Services (Junior Grade Pay Scale) i.e. Deputy Collector, which is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. It is submitted that though the petitioner was much senior that the respondent No.6 in the cadre of Superintendent (Land Records), but, due to non availability of ACR of the year 2015 and details of immovable properties of the years from 2011 to 2015 which

¶32

4 WPS No. 2276 of 2016

¶33

was one of the benchmarks for promotion, the petitioner’s case was kept in circulation by the DPC and for this reason, he could not be promoted to the post of State Administrative Services (Junior Grade Pay Scale) i.e. Deputy Collector.

¶34

That, so for as the contention of the petitioner that in compliance of the letter (Annexure P/3) the formality in respect to the petitioner has duly been submitted through Joint Collector by the letter dated 18.03.2016, but, despite of the same, the respondents did not promote him, is concerned, in this regard, it is respectfully submitted that by the letter dated 18.03.2016 (Annexure P/4), the details of the immovable properties of the petitioner was though forwarded by the Joint Collector to the Collector, District Janjgir Champa for necessary action, but, the same was sent after the date when the meeting of the DPC was conducted which was held on 03.08.2015 and till 03.08.2015 the details of immovable properties of the petitioner were not available before the DPC, therefore, his case was kept in circulation and he could not be promoted.”

¶35

The main reason for non-consideration of the petitioner’s case is that non-availability of the petitioner’s ACR of the year 2015 and the details of immovable properties of the petitioner from the year 2011 to 2015 as appeared from the above stated paragraphs of the reply filed by the

¶36

5 WPS No. 2276 of 2016

¶37

respondent-State. However, the petitioner has retired from service on 31.01.2017 after attaining the age of superannuation.

¶38

Be that as it may, it is directed that the necessary formalities will be completed by the competent authority and the petitioner will also cooperate in submitting the details of his immovable properties of the years from 2011 to 2015 and ACR of the year 2015 before the competent authority and thereafter, case of the petitioner will be considered by the competent authority for promotional post within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶39

With the aforesaid observation / direction the instant petition stands disposed off.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶42

Ankit

Chain Singh Uikey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chain Singh Uikey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Notiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramnath Ram Rawani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohini Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pritam Das Chouhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikram Singh Vimal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Bharti, Vs State of Chhattisgarh