IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR , W.P.!/S) No.3/l@ Of 2010 PETITIONERS :1) Bhojraj Bisen, son of Shri ‘_ Vithoba Bisen, aged 52 years, " an“ resident of Prem Nagar, .0 €14 (y (Pt ¢a Kondagaon, (C.G.) District Jagdalpur t 3M :2) / Ashwant Sahu, son of Late w Mangal Das, aged about 48 years, resident of Basantpur, Kodhi Khadan Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) :3)/Gurudayal Singh, son of Lathikhor, aged 55 years, resident of Vikas Nagar, Kondagaon Jagdalpur (C.G) :4) Bramha Shanker Pal son of Shrl Sukh Pal aged 5O years re81dent of Vlllage Vyaspur Post Bakewar, District Etawa (U.P.) presently resident of C.G. State Warehousing Corporation Campus, Raipur Road, Dhamtari (C.G.), :5) Ram Chandra, son of Narsingh Dhivar, aged about 55 years, resident of Village and Post Uparwara, vahya Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.), :6) Kishanlal Sahu, son of Ram Sahu, aged 4O years, resident of Village and Post Pisid, Tashil Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.), 7 f, :7) Bechnoo Ram Yadav, son of Shomaro Yadav, aged abOut 50 years, resident of Azad Ward, Nawapara, District Ambikapur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, D.K.S. Bhawan, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), V :2) Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, through the Managing Director, 22, Anand Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE m g THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA Present: - ShriPankajAgIawal.oollnselfor the petitionevs. - Ms'. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 on advance copy. * ORAI. ORDER (Passed on 2"“ .Iuly, 2010) With the consent of the paltles, the matter is taken up for hearing flnally. 2. The petitioners, who are working as Class-iV empioyee under Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, have med this petition for quashing the new staff set-up and for restoration of the earlier set-up. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondents be directed to hold D.P.C. Vi, and to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion under the old set up for hlling-up the post of Junior Assistant by way of promotion against 25% of the vacancies of Junior Assistant. 3. The basis of the petitioners claim is that earlier rules were framed ~ goveming terms and conditions of employees of the $tate Warehousing Corporation, known as Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations. 1962(ln Short “Regulations of 1962"). It is submitted that in the aforesaid regulations as they existed prior to. impugned staff set up, Class-IV employees like the petitioners were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. Though. number of Class-IV employees are I, WRIT PETITION (s) No.314‘91201o PETITIONERS Bhojraj Bisen and Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and Another H1, Q, \ working in the Corporation and their promotional. posts (Class-HI) are lying vacant, case of the petitioners for promotion are not being taken up for consideration under the new staff set up as indicated in Annexure P-3 because the post of Junior Assistant has been abolished. 4. Leamed counset appearing for the petitioner submits that on account of aboiition of the post of Junior Assistant, the petitioners, Class-IV empioyees working in the Corporation shall be ieR with no other promotional avenues whatsoever. lt is further submitted that the employment in the Corporation is a public employment. and therefore. respondents are under an obligation to provide proper career advancing scheme and promotional avenues. 5. A perusal of the Regulations of 1962 (Annexure P-4) would show that there exists avenue of promotion for some of the Chss-lV employees to Class- lll posts which have been specified in the Schedule appended to the Rules. The earlier set up which has been place on record as Annexufe P-1 shows that there existed posts of Junior Assistants. However, in the new set up (Annexure P-3), posts of Junior Assistant have been abolished. 6. From the above, it appears that the promotionai avenues of Class-IV employees working in the Corporation have undergone change and in the r absence of the post of Junior Assistants. benefit of promotion is no longer availabie to the petitioners-class—lv employees. Though, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia could not direct the respondents to frame particular kind of promotional scheme for providing opportunity of promotional avenue to any classicategory of employees in public employment but in cases where no promotional avenues are available, it would 'be proper to direct the respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioners -r and take appropriate decision, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in ‘$£a¢\ s £3 the cases of State of Ttipura and Others v. K. K. Roy, 2004 AIR scw 1, Dr. Ms. O. Z. Hussain v. Union of India. 1990 (Supp.) SOC 688 and Council of Scienn'flc and Industrial Research V. K. G. S. Bhatt, AIR 1989 SC 1972. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to make a detailed representation to the respondents ventiiating their grievances arising on account of total loss of promotional avenues from class~lV to Class-Ill cadre. in case. such representation is being made, the respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. Tum-m 8. Wih the aforesaid observation. this petition’is disposedoff. No order as \. to costs. r: W; sag; Maninolra Mchan Shrivastava r Jiidge