•e^-l^L- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fSl N0. ^l^u\ / 2010 PETITIONER ^,; RESPONDENTS Ravindra Patel S/o. Shri Ghasia Patel, aged about 54 years, R/o. Bodapali Kednan, via Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, the Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Directorate, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Panchayat & Sociat Welfare Directorate, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA T 3:Tr^T^»T l<rlJch WT ^n^TsFRNT ^ iG ^ w»icir<»»<iicb ^sr •^i<ii<n'Li, ©Tfl<H<i<o, [sicni-My-. ..:^.f..&.)..^..:..k5a.J.i 200 ^TI^?! TT5T°F (^rf^5^?) 5«iiW^f^a 3?t^T SB : Huri'bie Shri IVianJndra Moh i3^8'2010 f4r Ms. Naushlna Aii, counsei Shri V.V.S. Murth-y, Deputy ^c The case of the petiuoner i^ intemai Auditor and Taxation Offic^ Assistant Gram Panchayat Offjce| changed and caSied Assistant interi It is submiued that when stsnl date of inltial appointment of tl-^ 30/03/1984. He carne to know abbut representation bringing it to the no| of the initiaE date of appointrn^nt Subsequentiy, the respondents i^su< wherein the correct date of jnitial a'i piadng in the gradation iist based| has not been record^dv The res^ 15/07/2010 byvvhich petjtloner has| persons appointed after the petiiior representation has been made, the| Taking into consia'eratlon, th|e this Court and also considerina that llst dated 25/06/2010 h-av-e correctl' of the petitioner, petitioners clairti gradatlon iist accordiny to hJs init considered bythe respondents. obi4(d41^ '^riwff ^ fe^t <P^^i< '^3TRR3TI^T nShrivastava. J. the petitioner. ^dvocate General for the State. that the-petltioner is working as Asslstant |cer. Pe'uuoner 'was earller appointed as and now nomencjature .of the post' has i'al Auditor and TaxiBtion Offic9r; stsnlorlty iist dated 1/4/09wasL issued, the petiuoner was vvrongiy rfientioned as the said error and the petjtioner made |ice ofthe respondents that the actual date is 30/03/1880 and not 30/03/1984. i^sued another yradatlon list on 25/06/10 ijt?poinmient has been mentioned but proper cn the co'uect date of initiai appolfittTient ^ondents have issued proinotion order on |not been promoted and a number ofjunjor |er, have been granted promotion. Though [same has faiied to evoke any response. :h|B grievance raised bythe petiuoner before the respondents by subsequent gradatJon ;|y recorded the jnitiai date of appointment for according proper piacement In the ;|al date of appointment is requir'ed to be ^^ws='Xl-HC—78 W^T^T^NT ^T^TT -3?n^T^RW ^ Oyy^ili <iTzi <^i<ii<n'4, y>Til-(-ili<o, [®i<ni<-i^< *111CTI »*1ict»"" • " -^ 200 37I^?T T(3PF ( y<I^<sl<^) Accordingiy, respondent representation of the petiuoner. aiong with copy of representauon No.2 within a period of one month appropriate.decision cn peutioner's vvithin a reasoiTabie period and n submlssion ofthe representation ar In case, it is found that tl- petitloner was wrong placement Ir also consider peutioner's ciaim for y ^RT^feFJh 'RP^if '^ f^TCt <r»(^l< ^3ff?W3rH^T 1 No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner shaii submlt copy of this order eariier submitted before the respondent |from today. Respondent No»2 shail take Tepresentation and in accordance with law bt iater than 4.months from the date of sd a copy of thls order. ic oniy reason for non-promotion .of tne l the seniority 11st, respondent No.2 shall iromotJon from due date. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge