Smt. Rama Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8396

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2079 of 2021

¶6

Smt. Rama Meshram W/o Late Gagan Meshram, Aged About 61 Years And 7 Months Posted As Asst. Grade 2 Pwd Dept. E/m Division Durg C.G. District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Public Works Department North Block Sector 19 Nirman Bhavan Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Chief Executive Officer Pwd Public Works Department North Blocks Sector 19 Nirman Bhavan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

S.R. Lehere Aged About 57 Years Posted As Asst. Grade 1 Pwd Dept. E/m Division Kanker C.G. District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar For Respondents/State. : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶13

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

18/02/2025

¶16

The petitioner who was working as Assistant Grade II with PWD Department has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

¶17

2

¶18

Constitution of India against inaction on the part of the respondents authority in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion from Assistant Grade II to Assistant Grade I.

¶19

The brief facts as reflected from the record are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade II on 11-8-1980 and thereafter she was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade II in the year 2007. The respondents have not conducted the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting for the last 14 years from her last promotion. Subsequently DPC was conducted in the year 2021 and respondent No. 3 was promoted as Assistant Grade I in the PWD Department.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not having adverse ACR for the last ten years, still she was not promoted to the post of Assistant Grade I by the department, as such, once the DPC was conducted 2021 the case petitioner should have been considered for promotion and the respondents deliberately the right of the petitioner for promotion for AG-I has not been considered by them and issued promotion order in favour of respondent No. 3. He would further submit that there is no default on the part of the petitioner to have ACR reports as it is issued by the authority and it is for the State to have ACRs with them. He would further submit that it is the duty of the concerned department to send the ACR reports to the respondent No.2 and if the report are not submitted, the petitioner should not suffer due to the fault on the part of the concerned department. Therefore, he would pray for issuance of direction to the concerned department to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade I with effect from 24.2.2021.

¶21

3

¶22

Learned State counsel would submit that it is empathically denied that with malafide intention the case of the petitioner for promotion has not been considered but in fact ACRs of the petitioner from March 2015 to March 2019 were not available with the respondent which are necessary for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as such, there is no illegality on the part of the respondent and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. She would further submit that not only the ACRs of the petitioner but ACRs of other candidates were not available, however, now the ACRs are available with them, as such, the State has taken a decision that they will consider the case of the petitioner in the next DPC and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶23

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

¶24

From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion is due to non-availability of the ACR. It is well settled position of law that ACR has to be submitted by the higher authority and the petitioner has no role to play, therefore, whatever negligence on the part of the respondent authority, the petitioner should not suffer. Since the ACRs are available with the respondent and considering the fact that the petitioner stood retired from services in the year 2021, the respondent authority is directed to consider the review DPC and if the petitioner is found to be suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade I, she may be granted promotion retrospectively from the date her juniors have been promoted and thereafter monetary benefits and pensionary benefits be also revised as per the new pay scale which she is entitled to get if she is found suitable for promotion.

¶25

4

¶26