Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2019WPC/1656/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondent authorities to consider petitioners' cases for promotion within two weeks, maintaining parity with similarly situated persons promoted despite a pendency plea from a related writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider cases for promotion within two weeks; writ petition disposed of.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs Jharkhand Urja Utpadan… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 1656 of 2018

¶3

Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

¶4

Hari Ram Swarnkar.

¶5

Rajeev Prasad.

¶6

Vinay Angira.

¶7

Rajeev Ranjan. … …Petitioner

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶10

Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶11

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶12

General Manager, (Personnel and General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. …

¶13

… …Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶16

For the Petitioner :Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate. For the Respondents :Ajit Kumar, A.G.

¶17

¶18

09/ 10.07.2019 Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the promotion of similarly situated persons have been considered by the Department and D.P.C. has been held but in case of present petitioners a plea has been taken by the Department that due to pendency of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5540 of 2009 the case of the petitioners cannot be considered.

¶19

Surprisingly, from perusal of the records, it appears that the persons whose cases have been considered for promotion were also contesting parties in W.P.(S) No. 5540 of 2009.

¶20

It appears that respondents have not taken into consideration that while considering the case of promotion parity has to be maintained. Aggrieved by non-consideration of their cases, the petitioners have again moved for promotion by filing the present writ petition.

¶21

¶22

Instead of deciding the case on merit, I direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of petitioners for promotion as it has been done in the case of other similarly situated persons, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

It is made clear that pendency of the writ petition [W.P.(S) No.5540/2009] will not come in the way of the respondents for considering the case of present petitioners for promotion in accordance with law.

¶24

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

P.K.S.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

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

Mosamat Ful Devi Vs Education

Kumari Ranju Vs Education

Lalita Oraon Vs Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Rakesh Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary

Ram Narayan Rajak And Ors. Vs Agriculture Department

Sheikh Mohammad Ansari Vs Jharkhand Gramin Bank Head Office Ranchi Through Its Chairman And Ors.