c.^ 10-^-. BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0 W^6 i 2010 PETITIONER .^1^-" ^\^^ ^.--n °^-'-""" RESPONDENTS ^•"^^ 'mf:. ^ WL ! t^^.^yh&' 1 -s^^ ^.^ %'%^-"^'"'' 4:' ^/^' .^ft:^ ^ T^el::,^^i ^ Jalandhar Pradhan S/o. Shri Ghasi Pradhan, aged about 54 years, R/o. Kokadi Patsendhori, post via Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through, the Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Directorate, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.' Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Directorate, Raipur(C.G.) ^ 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTIONOF INDIA l_^ 3TI^T^TftRW WT^H^IsFqN? -^ *II*ICTI (R^n^* ^ST ^l^Kri^l, ^^lly<l<o, I®!<rtl'H^< ^...Mf>.^)...te.,.A-?..&/^ '^200 ^1^?T ^W (y^<^) TCTW^rfi^T 3?rr^r SB : Hon'bie Shri iVianlncira Moh* 13-Q8^010 Ms. Naushina Aii, counsel f(^ Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy ^ T'ne case of the petitioner is| internal Auditor and Taxation Offil Assistant Gram Panchayat Off1cei| changed and calied Assistant interrj It is submitted that when s' date of initiai appolntment of tn< 30/03/87. He carne to know aboi representation bringEng it to the not of the initiai date of appolntment is the responuents issued another gra date of initlai appolntment has b( gradation list based on the correcl recorded. The resDondents have wtich petltioner has not been pn appointed after the peuuoner, represeruation has been made, the Taking into consideration, th tnis Court and aiso considering thal list dated 25/06/2010 have correcti of the peutioner, petltioners cialn gradauon list accordlng to his inlf considered .by the respondents. cbl^id^l^ 'wi^ff ^* fecst 7ftR5R ^3?firq3??1^T n Shrivastava, w. t" the petitioner. ^dvocate General for the State. that the p^titioner is working as Assistant |jer. Petiuoner was earller appointed as and 'now nomendature. of the post has lai Auditor and Taxation Ofricer. ^niority ilst dated 1/4/09 was issued, the ^ petitioner was wrongly mentioned as tit the sai'd error and the petitioner inade |c9 ofth^ respondents'that tna actuai date pO/03/80 and not 30/03/87. SubsequentSy, Idation'list on 25/06/1 Owherein the correct |en rnentioned but pioper piaclng In the date of Initiai appointment has not been' Issued pro?notion;order on 15/07/2010 by (|>moted and a nuniber of junlor persons l|ave been granted promction. Thou.gh |same has faiied to evoke any response, ^ grlevance raised by the- petitloner before the respondents by subsequent gradatlon |y recorded the initial date of appoinfment ji for accordltig propef placemerit iii the |al date of •appolntrYient is requlred to be ?n^<r, ^^T^IR —FS/147—2/2010 —1,00,000. sn^r^i'f^iw ^iT3TT^T^1qN? <* -:w WH^IT (ft*SI<ti ^'^r^ii^i^i^, ^Ti11y4i<o, f®«ni<H^< ^...^.£.6l.^.......A.&a./.^2oo 31I^?T^^ ( ^clisq<ilr) wnw^ft'cT 3>?i^r -^- Accordingly', respondent representation of the peutioner, aiong 'with copy of representatiorl No.2 within a period of one mont^ appropriate decision cn petiuoner^ wjthln a reasonable period and r1 submjssion of the representation ai in case, it is found that t! petitioner was vvrong placement i aiso consider petitloner's ciaim for <^i€(f<yi<fliWR^Tf ^f 1^T^t <Rn<^i< ^? affm a?n^r No.2 is dlrected to consider the Petitioner shali submit copy of this order eariier subrnitted before the respondent from today. Respondent No.2 shall take 'representatlon and in accordance with iaw .ot later than 4 months froin the date of )d a copy ofthis order. ie oniy reason for non-promouon of the i the seniorifry list, resporsdent No.2 shali jromotion from due date. Sd/- Manmdra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ?TR{cftzT seN^r %^rr?y^, ?^<Frjcr —FS/I47—2/201o—i ,00,000.