6 BEFORE THE HON'BLE/‘AQM.T§IBUNAL C)? B‘LP. AT RAIPU’R. G.A.No, k1} . /99 a: M3) ‘gMy/‘Jw Appiicaht — Shyam Sahahss/o Panchu Ram Saha aged about 36 years R/o §olice Y2‘uarter Felice Line Supela,§3hilai,13urg (MIEJ . / . 'VS Non—applicants (1) 3tate of M.P. through - Secretary, Home Depaxtment, Vallabh BhaWan , Bhopal (MP) . (2) Director General Qf ‘Police, Bhopal (M.p.). (3) Imagector General of ibiice, 1.3.0ffice, Raipur (MAL) . (4) Superintena‘entg of olice Distg.Durg (.£>.).. Station Inchare Cri Branch, ?.S.Bhilai Ehatti hilai, 3i$th.Durg LEA} . (6) Jalam Singh, “t Constable Crime ‘Br anch, Police Station Bhilai Bhatti Bhilai, burg amp.) . (7) Dhruv Kumar Man, k A P SMM47M . 1, ..} . etails of the alication D pp Alication u/1‘9’ of the AdnJI‘ribanal Act,1985. pp sw m P :v1 a me § {P (M rkhgde ”3 5C em? s W e , - ‘ 1w ‘ } 6 -. wm petition (s1 No.315912095 Shyam Shah Versus State of M.P. 8a others PETITIONER M W r , L _\ RESPONDENTS M ORDER 7// Manmdra W ' / d! . ST Cn'me Branch, Durg (Ammxure A—H). In the same incidmlce, patitioncr and respondent No.6 were rswarded with cash price which is re ected from orders of Annexure A-III, Annexure A—IV & Annexure A-V. However, though, the name of respondents No. 6 65 7 were recommended for out of turn promotion, name of the petitioner was not included in the order of promotion, Whereupori the petitioner submitted his representation. Respondents No. 6 & 7 have been considered and promoted, Whereas petitioner has been ignored. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this action on the part of respondents in recommending respondents No. 6 8r, 7 and ignoring the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion is discriminatory, as the petitioner had better‘service records. 4. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that out of turn promotion is not only based on the number of rewards, but also on seniority, less number of penalty, etc. It is submitted that the number of rewards in favour of respondent No. 6 8r. 7 are more than earned by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not justihed in raising any grievance on account of his non‘promotion. 5. I have honsidemd the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. s 6. From the return of the respondents. it is found that respondents No. 6 £31; 7 have been given promotionnot only because they are seniors but also because they earned more rewards as compaied to the petitioner. It is the burden of the petitioner to' establish that his record is better a than respondents No.6 &_ 7, which the petitioner has failed to discharge. '7. Thsrc is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the assartion of the oiTlcial respondents that mspondsnts No. 6 & 7 have earned more awards than petiu‘onsr. 8. Consequently, this Court does not find any megality in the action of respondents and the petition stands dismissed. f/ 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Sdl- ‘ m ‘ndra Mohan Shrivastava e ,n’rrc' /