»: •(•d-W) {Bdoqg 'UBABqg t[qBT[BA 'd'N jo 31^8 ^uam^jedsa uopBj^siuTmpv PJSUSQ 'Are^ajosg {BjauaQ aqj, •(•0-3) efnSjng ^OT^SIQ 'Buiqgy •B?[[BS '{ooqog Arepuoosg -isqgiH "^AOQ '{edpuud 31IJ, •(•o-o) Bfn3jng IOU^SIQ 'jndfejng ^OU^STQ uopsonpg 'jaoijjO uo^onpg ^OU^SIQ •(•0-0) mdreg 'BXB[BU[BL[OLreg Lreqsspqg 5IOq 'J0133JIQ aqj, "('O'O) 'Jndrey WSWS^Q 'S'51'a ^uamiJBdsa uopBonpg 'A-re-qa-iosg aqj, '('O'O) 'Jndrey 'uBM^qg 'S'3"Q •^uai.a^JBdaa UOpB-I^STUIUIpV pJ3U3Q 'A-re^ajoas ai[j, :qgnojqj, qjegsp^qqo jo s^B^g °)o -o/^' ^iy' \ / t»s^ siNaaNOdsaa 'tSswiltB.ilJfeigi "('O'O) Bfngjng ^OLqsiQ 'BpaureJpLTBLO ^so,j 'iusfej -3§i3{IiA ssajppv ^uasaJfj VB (-O'o) ^fnSjng ^OT^STQ 'BmqSv TS-syeg 'poqog Arepuoosg jaq§ip[ "UOQ jajn^oaq 'SJBS^ ^.g ^noqa ps§B qSuig qsBqqng yqg s^q o/g qguig qsipg^p snsaaA <. ^ V/^^ 3 ./.\€^ ..•••' .<.>w'-.-- ..•'"' -^' .-•'" . >'"' ...••^".•^' ^^% •^f^- ^ ~? aaNouuad 900S/ ^ ^, "ONNOIJlL3dZMAV VOT3J andsv^Ia j-v HHVOSIU-VHHO do^lHnoo HOIH SHI NI vy^- %i^HI!^l WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE ORDER / ORDERS, DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS. r— K' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition NQ. 369 of 2005 " A Petitioner Jagdish Siagh Versus Respondent State of Chhatdsgarh & others WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agniliotri J.) Shri A. N. Bhakta, Advocate for the petifibner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. O R.D E R (Oralj (Passed on this 17th day of September, 2009) Heard. Leanied coiuisel appearing for the petitioner subinits that the petitioner is entitled to two KramorLaati (tune bound prouiotion) the first after coiapletion of 12 years and second after completion of24years. The brief facts, in nutsheU, are that the petitioner initiaUy joiaed bis services as Upper Divisiou Teacher on 14.7.1962. Thereafter, he was proinoted to fhe post ofAssistant District laspector of School (A.D.I.S.) ia July, 1972 and subsequently promoted to the post of Lecturer on 15.10.1991. After rendermg 38 years of service he retired oa 30.6.2003 from the post of Senior Lecturer. The grievance of the petitioner is that fhe petitioner worked as A.D.I.S. for about 20 years without benefit ofpromotion as weU as Kramoiuiati. Thus, the respoadents aufhorities may be directed to grant two Kramoimati to the petitioner. Shri A. N. Bhakta, leanied counsel appearfng for the petitioner subxuits fhat fhe Kramoiuiati is graated on non-availabilily of proniotional avenues. As the petitioner was not graa.ted promotion for about 20 years, he was entitled to graat of Kramonnati. The poUcy on Krainormati is veiy clear, fhat if aa employee is found fit for promotion but could not be promoted on accouut of waat of vacancy or otherwise, he niay be considered for grant of Kramoimati. In the present case fhe petitioner has beeii graated ^ ^ss^. •'a®?-^,^-,,;' ^aus^ ^. w. J. '•''».,.';?£B"<<3S "'-fe.^BES^' •ss*s ^i^^.^i^,^ 7. c/\/ ,/1/ two proiuotions on the date when fhe vacaacy of the proxaoted post was available aud fhe petitiouer was foiind fit for promotion. The case ofthe petitioner is that he ought to have been graated promotion/Kramoiuiati when he was workuig as A.D.I.S., cannot be considered today as fhe same was not chaUenged iuunediately after completiou of 12 years ofservice. Haviag heard learaed counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts situation of the case, the contention of Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, leamed coiuisel appeariag for the respondents/State inerits acceptance. On perusal of the documents appended to fhe petition as weU as ^ retum, I have found tti.at the petitiouer did not make any grievauce when he was working as A.D.I.S. Afiser haviag promoted to the post of Lecturer and fhereafter, baving ictired on 30.6.2003 irom the post ofSeiiior Lecturer, the petitioner raised the issue for grant of Kramoniiati. Adnuttedly, the petitioner was graated two proinotions ia lus service career, as contended by leamed Deputy Govt. Advocate, on fhe basis of availabUily of vacancies aud suitabilily of the petitioner. The purpose of graat of Kramonnati is to accomniodate those eiuployees, who have been found fit for proinotion but couM not be granted proiaotion on accoiiat of non-availabitity ofvacancies and other factors. In the present case this is not the situation, as it is not apparent fhat fhe petitioner was found fit for promotion but could not be promoted, durmg fhe period he was working as A.D.I.S.. Further, the petitioner had not raised any grievauce before that, except after retireiaent and as such there is ndt nierit in this petition. The petitiou is accordiagly disinissed. No order as to costs. ThdmT Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge