c^? ^^/ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. Petitioner[8]: .^r ,^ty' ^^v^ €tr.: *?' ^? WP[S] No..S^../2010 *'""«' 1. Ram Prasad Baghel, S/o Mue Lal Baghel, Aged about 34 years, Posted at Crime Branch Squad, Janjgir, Janjgir-Champa CG State. . <t 2. Gauri Shankar Bagh]4el, S/o Sadj Ram Aged about 34 years, Posted at Akalthara PS Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State. 3. Pramod Kumar, S/o Gend Ram Mahar, Aged about 39 years, Posted at Akalthara PS, Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State. / 4. Dhritiahare, S/o Late Phool Singh, Aged about41 years, Posted at Pamgarh PS., Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State. '5. Ashok Kumar Disen, S/o ;ate Kirit Ram, Aged about 43 years, Posted at Navagarh PS, Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State. Respondent[s] 6. Babu Lal Diwakar, S/o Rampal Diwakar, Aged about 42 years, Posted at Pamgarh PS, Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State. Versus T^" 1. StateofC.G. Through: Secretary, Hoine Department, Govt. of CG, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. ^l- On^- yf.us.inH ^^.! 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur CG State. 3. Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur Dist, CG State. 4. Superintendent of Police, Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State. 5. Shri Lekh Ram Pathak, S/o Not known to the petitioner Aged not known to the petitioner Head Constable, Posted at Baradwar P.S. Shakti, Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State 6. Santosh Tiwari, S/o Not known to the petitioner Aged not known to petitioner Head Constable Posted at Shakti P.S. Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State. ^" 7. Hira Lal Ekka S/o not known to petitioner. Aged not known to petitioner, Head Constable Posted at Shivrinarayan, PS Janjgir Chainpa Dist CG State. 8. Simson Minj, S/o not known to petitioner Aged not known to petitioner Head Constable, Posted at Shivrinarayan PS Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITSFSI ORDERrsi DIRECTIONFS1 ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 648 of2010 PETmONERS : Ram Prasad Baghel & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofC.G. & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asmhotri. J. Present: Shri K.R.Nair, Advocate with Shri D.R.Minj, Advoeate tbrthe petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents 1 to 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 15"' day of Februar^', 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appeariiig for the petitioner suhmits fhat the petitioners have passed the requisite departmental test for promotion held on 8.12.2005 whereinthe petitioners were found successfal. Thereafter, the juniors to fhe petitioners in the list were promoted ignoring the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason. Beirig aggrieved, the petitioners prefen-ed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5292^009. This Court, by order dated 20.10.2009, pemiitted the petitioners to withdraw the petition witli liberty to inake a representation to the respondent- authorities. 2. According to leamed counsel appeai-ing for fhe petitioner, the petitioners made a representation on 14.11.2009 (Aimexure P/8), however, till date, no steps have been taken by the respondent authorities to consider and decide the said representation. It appears that the respondent-authorities are not acting on the representation because the petition was disinissed as withdrawn. Bi? ^,g-<^ ,/y&- • ~\ S( _^s^ ^ ^^^^•^•i(^^ ^^ "ifeh. 'v!y.^' 3. It must be made clear that ifa rqaresentation is made by au employee, in such a situation when there is serious allegation of discrimination by choosing junior persons and ignoring the elaim of the seniors, it is incumbent upon the respondent-authorities to consider the representation and pass appropriate order at the earliest. The authorities should not loose sight ofthe fact that they are the trustees to the welfare state. Therefore, they have to look into the grievance of the petitioners/employees, whether they approaeh the Court or not. 4. In view of the above, it is directed that respondent authorities shall eonsider and decide the representation, as aforestated, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt ofa eopy ofthis order, on its own merits and perspective. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is ' disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit