HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. 8: HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR $INHA, J. M WRIT PETITION No. 1262 of 2005 PETmowER Smt. Shivani Chakraborty, Aged about 36 years, W/o Shri Noni Gopal @ Amit ‘Chakravarty, Assistant Gr. I“, Labour Coun, Bilaspur, Rio Near Tarbahar Masjid, Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Labour, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, through its Registrar, Raipur (CG) President Industrial Court Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Present: Shri Sanjay K A'grawai and Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. RESPONDENTS Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Generai for the State / respondents. ‘ , ORDER (20th March, 2999) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 2) Though the writ petition is cognizabie by a Single Judge as per the High Court Rules, as the other writ petition fited by the petitioner (WP No.2571/2006) challenging vires of Sub -— Rule 15 _ 3;, §'\ B3 of Rule 6 of Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules 2003 is cognizable by Division Bench, this writ petition was also directed to be listed for hearing with WP No.2571f2006 vide order dated 16.03.2009. 3) Petitioner Smt Shivani Chakraborty has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs : “7'.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning 'the case of the petitioner from respondents for its kind perusal. ’ 7.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure P-1 1) by declaring the same to be void and inoperative in law. 7.3 The Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any disciplinary or any other action against the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to continue at Bilaspur. 7‘4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice, along with cost of the petition.” ‘ i 4 The Petitioner, thus in substance was seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure P—‘l 1) whereby the petitioner’s two-fold request for considering her promotion at Bilaspur itself and in the alternative for grant of permission to forego her promotion from Assistant Grade lll to Assistant Grade li was rejected. 5) Petitioner Smt Shivani Chakraborty was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade ill on 15.01.1991 and is working on the said post since then at Labour Court, Biiaspur. The Departmental ) w Promotion Committee convened on 10.01.2005 found the petitioner suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II. Consequentty, respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.01.2005 promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Grade ii and posted her on the said post at Rajnandgaon. The petitioner was directed to join at Rajnandgaon within seven days, failing which disciplinary action would be taken against her. The petitioner on account of her pecuiiar family circumstances found it difficult to shift to Rajnandgaon and therefore, submitted a representation dated 18.01 .2005 (Annexure P-2). The said representation was considered by respondent No.2 and was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure P-1 1). 6) On 04.04.2005, the foilowing interim order was passed in the writ petition : “Shri SK Agrawai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt Advocate takes notice on behalf of respondent No.1 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner to supply extra copy of the petition to counsel for the respondents. He seeks three weeks' time to tile the return. Time is allowed. Heard on MWP No.1005/2005. Having heard learned counsel for the parties. i have perused the record. Perusalof the records reveals that the petitioner is working as AG-lll in the office of Labour Court, Bilaspur and she was promoted on the post of AG—ll vide order dated 12.1.2005 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter, she was transferred to join her duties in the Labour Court, Rajnandgao‘n. But on account personal difficulties of the petitioner, she moved an application before respondent No.4 to forego her promotion. However, the .said representation of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.3, which is under chailenge in this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a female employee residing with her family and being a low paid employee l it would not be possible for her to join her duties at Rajnandgaon. ln View of the above facts, l am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which respondents should be directed to maintain status quo. Accordingly, it is directed the respondents shall maintain status quo with regard to the posting of the petitioner tiil the next date of hearing. List the matter on 25.4.2005. ln view of the this order, M.W.P. No.1005105 & LA. No.2441/05 stands disposed of. " 7) During the course of hearing, we were informed that the petitioner is continuing at Bilaspur on account of the above interim order since then. ’ 8) Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the averments made by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit dated 19.03.2009 wherein it has been categorically mentioned that at Rajnandgaon there are only two posts of Assistant Grade ll and at present both the posts are occupied by Smt Lateshwari Nairand Shri Yuvraj Sahu. Learned coonsei further submitted that after the rejection of the petitioner’s representation vide order dated 30.03.2005, Smt Lateshwari Nair, Assistant Grade il, Rajnandgaon was permitted to forego her promotion from the post of‘Assistant Grade ii to Office Superintendent and was allowed to remain at her present place of posting. it was further pointed out that recently on 02.03.2009 Shri RK-Suryavanshi, Assistant Grade li, Raigarh was also permitted to forego his promotion from Assistant Grade ll to, Office Superintendent. ’3] A 9) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, ieamed Additional Advocate General, in view of the above deveiopments, fairiy submitted that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation mentioning the hardships which the petitioner is likely to face on account of her shifting from Bilaspur on promotion, her case would be sympathetically considered by respondent No.2, either for her promotion from Assistant Grade Ill to Assistant Grade il at Biiaspur or permitting her to forego her promotion from Assistant Grade lll to Assistant Grade ll with the liberty to continue’at Bilaspur. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, so also the hardships likely to be faced by the petitioner on account of her shifting from Bilaspur, we direct that the petitioner may submit a fresh representation within a period of two weeks for re-consideration of her case for promotion from Assistant Grade ill to Assistant Grade ll at Bilaspur or in the x alternative to permit her to; forego her promotion from Assistant Grade Ill to Assistant Grade ll and to allow her to continue as Assistant Grade lll at Bilaspur. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the said representation within a period of two months from the date of submission of the representation at par with the cases of Smt Lateshwari Nair and Shri RK Suryavanshi. As the petitioner was permitted to continue at Bilaspur vide interim order dated 04.04.2005,-.we deem it proper to direct that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Bilaspur for a further period of r three months from today.