SLE BB1CI G^'3^- (9 ^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BSLASPUR fC.G.1 w.p.rsy NO. ,-^83^/20io ...^ ^y./ fMw" <^.yoy ylA ^/^9 4W <?. ^'^' ^'/^/ .OJ K/' <^ '"v^!^ '^S&r—s^ Sukhuram Thakur, S/o. S.N. Thakur, aged about 47 years, Welder Grade- II, S.E.C.L. Gavera, Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) R/o. Qtr. No.M.Q-169, Post Gavera, Dist. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS ^:1. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Through : Chairman-cum-Managing Director, SECL, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Personnel Manager, Administration/ Weifare, SECL, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^3. Director, Personnel, SECL, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Biiaspur (C.G.) ^ 4. 'Personnel Manager, SECL, Gevra Project, Distt. Korba (C.G.) >5. Gaya Prasad Sahu, S/o. Radheshyam, aged about 44 years, Weider Grade-II, S.E.C.L. Gavera, Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) R/o. Qtr. No.M.Q-169, Post Gavera, Dist. Korba (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Writ Petition (S) No. 2834/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Sukhram Thakur Versus South Eastern Coal Fields Limited and others Petition u/A 226 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Shri Ramakant Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 21.6.2010) 1. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as E.P. Welder Category - I on 10.12.1992, whereas respondent No.5 was appointed on 28.12.1992. It is further submitted that vide order dated 14.8.2001 (Annexure P-5), petitioner and respondent No.5 were promoted and in the said promotion order, name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.3, whereas respondent No.5 was placed at Sr. No.6. It is submitted that the order of promotion also reflected the inter se seniority position. 2. Further submission is that vide impugned seniority list (Annexure P-1), now the petitioner has been illegally placed bej(oN respondent No.5 though the petitioner was appointed prior to respondent No.5 and at all times and in all grades, as and when promotion were granted, petitioner was always placed over and above respondent No.5. .^-. ,;^^..^^^^^^.^M<»«^.».<»^»B.^^ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by action of respondents, a representation was made on 4.1.2010 (Annexure P-7) by the petitioner, wherein petitioner has claimed seniority over and above respondent No.5. However, so far, petitioner has not been granted seniority, as claimed. 4. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to direct respondents No. 1 to4 to take decision on petitioner's representation dated 4.1.2010 (Annexure P-7), within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. Needless to emphasise, if the grievance of the petitioner is not redressed, it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge I^-aveen