SINGLE BENCH s. 1&C"''/^ }N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3-S°) ^~/2005 Petitioner c; S. R. Dewangan Aged about 60 years s\o late T. Dewangan Village & P.0. - Chhuri Dist-Korba (CG) Versus Respondents 1. .•\^>^ .//^ .^w/ ^y^. s/ z' Coal India Ltd Through its Chairman cum Managing Director 10, Nefaji Subhash Road Kolkata 700001 South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through its Chairman cum Managing Director Seepat Road, Bilaspur(CG) 495006 Director (Personnel & I.R.) Coal India Ltd 10, Netaji Subhash Road Kolkata 700001 General Manager (Personnel) Coal India Ltd 10, Netaji Subhash Road Kolkata 700001 Writ Petition underArt226 oftheConstiiytJon oflndia 4. HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURB CHHATTI8GARH: BILA8PUR Sitigle Bexxeli: Hosi^ble Shiri Satish K. Agiiihotrty J, W. P, No. 359S of 2005 Petitioner : S, R. Dev^angan Versus Respondents : Coal India Ltd. & ofhers Sbn Gaiy Mii1<hopedhyeya, Advocate for the petitioner, Sbri P. S« Ko^hy, Aflvocate for the r^spondents, owjmm i 4th Septemfeer, 2006) 1. Tn thi^ petition ^ the petitioner has soiight a rilirection froin the TFSponde.nts to promote. t1^e petitioner ITI M-1 graide w»e.f 23.2.2005 i.e» the clete from which Tiis jui-iiors wei^3 promoted, witb conseqiiential benefits. 2. The case ofthe petitione.r i^ ftat he was appointed as Non-execiitive cadlre in the yciRT 1961. Tn fhe year 1QQ4 he wes pronioted as Finance Manager in E-R Grarie and he was diie for the next promotion from the year 1997 m next higher post ie. M.-T G^^ide, Vide order dated 23.2.2005, fifteen E-R Officer^ have been promoted to fhe M-1 GrRfie oiit ofwThich 14 persons ere jiinior to the petitioner. 3- The re^pondents in their -I'e.tiiiTt Tieve categoric?i11y stBtedl that the petitionier was entitled to be pro?notecl in the D-P.C. held in tTie yeRr 2004, however, Ttie coiild not he promoteri on accoi int of tlhe fact that the execijtfive eva1i<atiioTi repor^ which was a necesiseTy dociinient^ was not ^vailable, tTierefore. the case of the petitioner coiild not be considei'ed, Tliakur 4. The relevant part ofthe re1"<im rearls as under;" The contents stated in this pRFRgi^ph ere not dispiited es regard lengtli of service in RR GrRde piit in by the petitioner and thet the petitioner was eligible for promotion to M1 Gi-adle. Tt is also siibmitted tliet the DPC did meet ini the yeer 2004 for promotion of officers from ER to M1 Grade. However^ the fect remRins tb^t when the nPC wsis lield, tTie DPC did not r'eceive the ERR, whidh is a dociiment necesserily reqiiired for assessing the ^iiiitabililly of a CjRindid<Rte for proiinotion and in fhe absence of ERRs of tlhe pelitioner reqTtired by tthe DPC, the case of promotion of the petitioner fiilthoiigh considered coiildl not be decidled end ectitiel promotion coiilfl not be granted diiring tbe tenTiii-e ofservice as thereafter the petitioBer i^tirRfl froin service on ettn-iTiiDg the sige of siiiperanrsiiietion. >? 5, In view ofthe aflmitted case ofthe respondent?i, it is dirRcted that the petitioner he considerecl fbr promotiioni on his heing foiinfl flt m ecconlRTice with law w.e.C the flate his jiiniors were pinDmioted eBd conseqiientiel inonieteTy benefits he gi'anted fo tlhe petitioner in view ofthe fect that the petitioner st^Tids siiperaTiniieted- TTie pensiors of fhe petitioner mey <Rlso he iTivised, -Rccordingty, 6. For the foresairil reasons, tliiis petiition stands disposed of No oiider es to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge