r2f-^ro (^ INTHE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)NO. ^661 /2010 PETITIQNERS .^^ ^^ ^iS^ y .<?''A- ^ 1) Sita Ram Sahu S/o Late Ramu Sahu, aged about 56 years, Posted as Assistant Director Treasuiy Accounts and Pension in the office of Directorate, Treasury Accounts and Pension Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2) ^ 3) •^ VERSUS Ajay Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Krishna Gupta, aged about 52 years, Posted as Accounts Officer, in the office of Estate Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offence/Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur, Telibandha Road, Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Sumant Sai Kuruvanshi S/o Late Ratnu Sai, aged about 49 years, Posted as Accounts Officer, in the office of District Panchayat Raigarh, Department of Panchayat 85 Rural Development Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Finance and Planning Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) SS'S/',.^,, ^^/ 2)" The Principle Secretary Finance and Planning Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Commissioner, Directorate Treasury, Accounts and Pension Raipur (C.G.) 4) The Additional Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension Directorate, Treasury & Accounts Pension, Anand Nagar Raipiu- (C.G.) 5) Shri A.K. Verma, Deputy Director Posted in the Department of Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Raipur Gandhi Chowk, Near Ram Mandir Raipur (C.G.) 6) Fabiya Nus Minz, Deputy Director, in the office of Finance Chief Electrol Officer, Raipur (C.G.) 7) ' Toran Lal Sahu, Deputy Director Finance, In the office of Directorate Geology 85 Mining Ring Road, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE.226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA f ^ XI-HC—78 •SFTT^T ^T "f^lNT ?T^n 3TT^T^*1T^ 'ysss -i)i<<i<yj<4, ®ttl<H'ie,fsKniyy __...m$>i.2.lA^..:..3.6i'J.i.2W^ 200 3^1 'tRq? (ipf^q^Er) TOITW^lfefai^I SB : Hon'bie Shri iVianindra Mo 22-07-2010 Shri Jitendra Gupta, coun^el Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel L| Grievance of the oetitioil petitioners were entitied to be pi^ri on account of non-avaiiabiiity of 4 rriade in the year 2002, petttionerj this, there was deiay' in grantind (Annexure P/7) foitovved by rnej aspect ;w'as highiighted by the Diiji the Governrnent for grant of appr( the Governrnent has not passep decision of such ciaim of the On the contrary, vide rnemo da|' that no further action is reauired. Frorn communication datet th8 ciairn of the petitioneis has dated 18/01/2010 and 16/02/2$1 aforesaid two documenis dated Directorate made speclfic recont petitioners. The State Govemn|i decision on such claim by speakif does not contain any reason a|i considered by the State Goveifi <hflt<n<fll TTR^ff ^? 'f^Si' ^^U ^r sifim aiitff ian Shrivastava, j. n^el for the petitioners. jawyer for the State/respondent No.1 to 4. ler as set out in the Detition is that ttie pi^moted as Accounts Officer Since 2002 but jonfidentiai reports, atthetime ofpromotions fe couid not be considered and on account of promotion. Vide rnemo dated 16/02/2010 jno dated 18/01/2010 (Annexure P/8), this jectorate and recommendations are made to (>priate seniority to the petitioners. However, sep any speaking order communicating any p^titioners recommended by the Directorate. led 16/02/2010, it has been communicateu d 16/06/2010, it is ciear that no decision on been taken by the Government on rnemo )10 of the Directorate. Contents of the 18/01/2010 and 16/02/2010 show that the imendauon with regard to the case of the ient is obiiaed tu applv its mind and take ig order. Comrnunication dated 16/06/2010 s to why the petitionsrs cases were not nrnent. Accor< respondent N0.1 Is "'wfSfi'^'^SSSS' "-r" /'f"% \ f! 1 •'••^^XffK^-IS Sf^V W ft-lJi* 'SW SW^V st>t!i<k ^v ^ST ^|q)<iq^ S>tl1<-l'l<o, fqWiyy ^-....^.S&.')..^o..^.6..6.t.!..!^. s^i Tra^7 (Tpf^^ii) ¥RIIW^ft(i3D^i directed to take appropriate dec pemioners. Taking into consideration 16/02/2010 ofthe Directorate, th< of 4 months from the date of comlnunication vvlth the aforesald observ"tti< <=h!<i[<n<^*T '^^ -if^^ '<F>i^[<: ^aiRnan^r sion by speai<ing oraer on tne ciaim of the 'ne recornmendations dated 18/01/2010 and i decision shaii be taken within an outer iimit of thls order. tion, the petition is nnaiiy disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge