Ashwani Kumar Manher Vs Chhattisgarh Housing Board

¶1

1

¶2

RAVISHANKARMANDAVI Digitallysigned byRAVISHANKARMANDAVIDate:2025.07.3112:41:40+0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:36528

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

REVP No. 153 of 2025

¶7

1 - Ashwani Kumar Manher S/o Shri Chhote Lal Manher Aged About 51 Years Working As Executive Engineer (Electrical) Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Chhattisgarh Housing Board (Established U/s 3 Of Chhattisgarh Grihanirman Mandal Adhiniyam 1972). Through Its Chairman, Head Quarters Paryawashbhawan, North Block Section-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Commissioner Chhattisgarh Housing Board Paryawashbhawan, North Block Section-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Government Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Sunil Kumar Singh (Deleted) (In Compliance Of Hon'ble Court Order Dated 22.08.2024)

¶14

5 - Rakesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri D.R.Patel Aged About 37 Years Executive Engineer (Electrical), Chhattisgarh Housing Board, R/o E-3, Abhilasha Parisar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - Narendra Chandrakar S/o Shri D.R. Patel Aged About 37 Years Executive Engineer (Electrical), Chhattisgarh Housing Board, R/o E-3, Abhilasha Parisar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

7 - Pankaj Kumar Mishra S/o Harsh Narayan Mishra Aged About 33

¶17

2

¶18

Years Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, R/o Opposite Pooja Plastic Factory, Amalidhi Marg Devpuri, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate
For Respondents No.5 to 7 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

28/07/2025

¶23

The present review petition has been filed by the applicant/review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 2865/2020 (Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Chhattisgarh Housing Board & Others) whereby this Court has disposed of the said petition alongwith WPS No.8107/2023 vide order dated 09.04.2025.

¶24

In the aforesaid writ petition this Court has observed in paras 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 as under :

¶25

“2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that resolution dated 27.06.2020 (Annexure -P/1), which is subject matter of challenge, has been withdrawn by the Housing Board vide Resolution No.2104 /04/ 82/ 03/ 2025 in its meeting dated 26.03.2025 and it has been decided to have uniform rules for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Civil & Electrical). In this regard, affidavit has been filed by

¶26

3

¶27

respondents No.1 & 2, in which, it has been specifically mentioned that with the aforesaid development, the resolution which is under challenge in WPS No.2865/2020, stand cancelled, thus no deviation in the rules for promotion on the same post of different branch is now being proposed by the Housing Board & Department, therefore WPS No.2865/2020 has become infructuous, as the relief sought for has already been granted to the petitioners.

¶28

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though relief sought for under Clause-A has been granted but respondents may be directed to consider the promotion of petitioners within a period specified by this Court, as in different stream i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Civil); two promotions have already been effected in respect of similarly situated employees.

¶29

On the above contention, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that since there is no different rules for promotion of employees of two streams, hence the issue of promotion of petitioners shall be considered after framing regulations.

¶30

In view of above contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, WPS No.2865/2020 is disposed of. However, respondents are directed to consider the issue of promotion of petitioners after framing/amending regulations, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order before respondents No.1 & 2.

¶31

Accordingly, WPS No.2865 of 2020 stands disposed of.”

¶32

The writ petition bearing number WPS No.2865/2020 was preferred by the petitioners No. 2. Rakesh Kumar Patel, 3. Narendra Chandrakar and 4. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, who are

¶33

4

¶34

respondents No. 5, 6 & 7 herein respectively, seeking following relief(s) :

¶35

“a) Quash the impugned decision by way of Resolution dated 27/6/2020 (P/1) and all consequential actions and decisions taken thereto.

¶36

b) Issue appropriate writ directing the respondents to maintain parity in between the Executive Engineers (Civil) and Executive Engineer (Electrical) in accordance with Schedule IV, Sl. No.2, Column-4, notified under Regulation No.11, in the matter of promotion to the next higher same post of Dy. Commissioner.

¶37

c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with costs of the petition be awarded.”

¶38

The applicant/review petitioner herein was intervener in linked case WPS. No.8107/2023 which was dismissed as having become infructuous. Learned counsel for the applicant/intervener therein would submit that vide order dated 07.08.2024 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in WPS No.8189/2019 had observed that order letter dated 12.06.2018 would have no effect whereby period of experience of Sub-Engineers for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer and Assistant Engineers for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer which was 8 years were reduced to 6 years/4 years respectively. He further submits that it has not been observed in order dated 09.04.2025 passed in WPS No.2865/2020. Hence, aforesaid order passed in WPS No.2865/2020 on 09.04.2025 may be reviewed.

¶39

5

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5/petitioner No.2 therein in WPS No.2865/2020 would submit that in the aforesaid writ petition the subject matter in WPS No.2865/2020 was only seeking relief of maintaining parity in between Executive Engineer (Civil) and Executive Engineer (Electrical) for promotion on the next higher post of Deputy Commissioner (Civil / Electrical). He further submits that in WPS No.8189/2019 the applicant/review petitioner was neither petitioner nor respondent and the subject matter of challenge in that writ petition is rules relating to the post of Sub Engineer to Assistant Engineer.

¶41

He further submits that administrative instruction dated 12.06.2018 was not subject matter in WPS No.2865/2020 therefore, review application is liable to be rejected.

¶42

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

¶43

In WPS No.2865/2020 which was filed by the petitioner therein was only seeking relief of maintaining parity in between Executive Engineer (Civil) and Executive Engineer (Electrical) for their promotion on the next higher post of Deputy Commissioner (Civil / Electrical). The aforesaid Administrative Instruction dated 12.06.2018 which was observed in WPS No.8189/2019 was not a subject matter in that writ petition. Further, the applicant/review petitioner herein was neither petitioner nor respondent in WPS

¶44

6

¶45

No.8189/2019, therefore, contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/review petitioner herein that having considered Administrative Instruction dated 12.06.2018 which was made ineffective by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 07.08.2024 in WPS No.8189/2019, therefore, order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.2865/2020 deserves to be reviewed, is not sustainable.

¶46

Further, there is no apparent error found or brought before the Court in order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.2865/2020. Hence, I do not find any good ground to review aforesaid order.

¶47

Accordingly, instant Review Petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Judge

¶50

Ravi Mandavi

Ashwani Kumar Manher v. Chhattisgarh Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Kumar Manher v. Chhattisgarh Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Lonia Vs Ramu Lonia

Babita Dutta, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Shiorati Prasad Jaiswal

Smt. Madhu Ukey Vs State Bank of India

S. Laxmi Nirmala Deep @ S. Laxmi Nirmala Vs S. Vijay Kumar

Dr. Rukhmani Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh