Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BiLASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2S20 of 2007 Smt. Wjay Laxmj Yadu, Wd/o. Late Shn Mithitesh Kumar Yadu, agsd about 45 years, resident of Shikshak Coiony, Station Para Ward No.10, Rajnandgaon (CG). Versus 1) The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Panchayat and Sociat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Coitector, Districi Rajnandgaon (CG). 3) Chief Executive OfRcer, Zila Psnchayat, Distrtct Rajnandgaon (CG). 4) Director, Directorate of Panchayat and Sociai Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raspur 5) Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Wetfare, District Rajnsndgaon (CG). it Petition under Article 226 of the Constituflon of India.) SB: Hon'bie Mr. SaUsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: and 5/State. Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the petjtioner. Smt. Sunite Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondents 1,2 ORALORDER (Passed on 9* day of April, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner seeks (i) a writ/direction to the respondent-authorities to grant the benefits.of first and second Kramonnati, fix the pay scaie and airears with 18% interest per annum and ffi) the pension be revised with consequentei benefits. 2) The facte, in nutshell, are that th®petitioner was a °inteci as Gram Sahayak in the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Raipur, on 7-3- .3. 4^ Raju 1980. The petitioner ciaims first and second Kramonnati after eompietion of 12/24 years ofservice respectively. 3) Learned counsel appearing for e respondents No. 1, 2 and 5/ State submits that the petitioner was granted first Krarnonnati with effect from •tS-4-1899 (Annexure P/1). Wrth regard to the second Kramonnati, iearned counsel submte that in accordance with guideiines/circuiar dated 17-3- 1999/19-4-1999 (Annexure P/3), issued by the Pension Ceil of frie Generai Administration Department of the State Govsrnment, preceding five years confidentiai reports of an employee are to be considered. ifthe emptoyee is found fit for promotion, in that event atone the empioyee can bs granted Kramonnati. In the presert case, the State authorities have aiready considersd his five vears confidential reports and it has been found that the petltioner v/as not fit for promotion, thus, he cannot be granted second Kramonnati. 4) The petitioner, in this petition, has not chalienged Uie date of grant of first Kramonnati and in second Kramonnati aiso the oetitioner has not chaitenged the consideration of ths rsspondent-authorities, in view of the cireuiar as stated abov®. Since the respondent-auftorfties have considered the case of the petitioner, in accordance with iaw and following the circular issued by the Govemment, from time to time, the reiief claimed in this petitfon cannot be granted to the petitioner. 5) The petitioner has not macie out any case for grant of a writ/dirsction, to the respondents. Even oflierwise, the petttion does not disciose sufficient materials for grant of prayer as sought for. There is no merit in the case. 6) This petition is accordingly dismissed. — Satish K. Agnihotn Judge