f BC&'f'i ,E Stw ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHl WRIT PETITION N0. 33^-7-QF 2006 PETITIONERS /4^ ^^ 's'.-"' r 9i"' ..•"" y .^%-- ry^y ^/<^7?;'" >/"\-tfli'' '9 ^y. fy <-^%7 l^s^— ^l. Birendranath Mishra, Son ofshri Rajmani Mishra, aged about 40 years, Resident of Ramanujganj, District Surguja (C.G.). / P/-'?'! /2. Vinod Kumar JaiswalSon of <SRri Buddhu Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 45 years, Resident of Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ^l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Managing Director, C.G. State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Raipur (C.G.). The Manager, C.G. Stgte Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Bal Ashram Parisar, Kachahari Chouk Raipur (C.G.). The District Manager, C.G. State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT_PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE__OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION ETC. 08, 'l. y3, /4. €> ~yss -*{ww^, ®iily'i<o,[sjdi-yy ^..^.....M.P®..'-o..'..3%.&l:/. an^n^? (Tpf^sq) 31i^7[ W k-Vv w sn^v s»*iw So ; non'Die snn mariinura Kionan onn v.r\.r'anaev. counsei ror in ^t^wPT 'RR^Sf ^ f^st <f^<EeR ^nnvasiava. j. rvis. torniia unai, r-'anei Lawyer yni'i ViveK Karijan i nvari, coun; witri tne consent ot iearrieu co^nsei lOi uie panies, EiEiciiEy. i riis peiiuon is Tiiea D¥ ine 21/uo/uS) iMnnexui'e r-vii Dv 'vvnicn yetiiioners nas ueen canceiieu on q reguiar prornoiion, me peiiiioners r-'eiiiioners are aiso aggrieveu uy B & petrtjoners. ior ine oiaie/responaeni IMO.'I . .ei ror resoonuenis NO.^.O ana 4. case is neara /eCiioners, agu'ilevecs uy oraei' datea me aanoc ot'urnuuon granieci 10 ine he yrounu tnat uuon consicierauon Tor 'were noi founa Tii TOI' prornuiion. |e acuon OT ine s'esponaerits 'vi/nereDy recovery has 'been rnade on account of nigfier salary pasu to tiie petitioner uunny ineu aunuu piomouoiL in ine reiurn, tiie responuenisj suurfiit tnat n6 main operaTive reason ror nOioiny ine peiirioners urnti TOF penoa ^uuj-^uu'i, 'vi/nicn was lai^ imoiion was an aaverse remarK ror ine r on orniueu upon consiueraiion or reDresentauon ana Dromotiun nas t-aiso Deen ui'antea to ine uetrtioners inereaner. u Leamed counsel for the seulioneis subrfllts that once the auveree rernarKs wnicn 'was sasis Tor non-pro|nouon nas &een orniusu, peutioners are noi oniy eruiiieu 10 DQ promoieu oui ajso irorf! 01®aaie, iney wouia nave ueen { promoted uut for au'verse rernarks. j St is further subrfiitted tnat under any CHCumstarices, the petiiioners haviilg vi/orked on a niyhei' post though in sn^v w ft'fii* WI 3TI^?I Stiiw 4-ni's<i<)i<y)<<, yi-alyiie, fs|diy^< —.......^.p....^..-....-.??..'^^/^ ^^^.......................-.........................,... sn^TTWlT (ipfg^sr) TCtiw^ifersn^t -5- aanoc capaoiry, no recovery snouiu promotlon is withdrawn. LeaiTieu counsei ror responaei of the subsequent developments tha' prornotion was granted, respondents petitioners anci pass necessary orci promotion and on the aspect of recov No.2, 3 and 4 brings to the notice appeai coniaineu in r<uie ^4 OT Kecrui] Accoi'uingiy, the petitioners respondsnt authorities and prornoiion ana regaraing recovery asy aaie OT receipi or rnemo OT appeai. vvith the aforesaid direcuons. ti| TpiferahT •wroftf •fs^l'Tfw^R: ^sfRnsn^r be made even jf subsecjuentiy adhoc its No.2.3 and 4 subrnlts that because the adverse rernark 'was omitted and are wiiiing 10 consiuer ine case OTine ^rs 'with regard to grant of proforrna ery. Learned cuunsei for respondents ifi inis i-o'u!'!, ine provisions reiaiing lu rneni ana r'romouon Kuses. rn^y preTer appropnaie appsai DeTore me necesspry oraers v»iin regara 10 prororrna (ect be passed wlthin 3 months from the e petltion stands finaily uisposed off. Sd/- M.M. Shrivastava Judge