(kY' c^'1-^57— THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P.fS) NO.<^%9L3 /2Q1Q / ^^ r^S^ yA ^.@ny ^yy Ramavtar Sapre, S/o. Shri B.R. Sapre, aged about 46 years, Turner Grade-B, S.E.C.L. Gavera, Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.), R/o. MQ-123 Shakti Nagar, Korba (C.G.) VERSUS ^l. South Eastern Coal Fietds Limited, Through : Chairman-cum-Managing Director, SECL, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bitaspur (C.G.) ^ 2. Personnel Manager, Administration/ Welfare, SECL, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^3. Director, Personnel, SECL, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^4. Dy. General Manager^ Central Excavation Workshop, SECL, Gevra Project, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 5. Ramswaroop Patel, aged about 47 years, Turner Grade-II, S.E.C.L. Gavera, Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IISSDIA ,^^-'^^ ^^. .'"% ,r^^ • ' 2SJ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH LBILASPUR SINGLE BBNCH : HON»BLESHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. PETITIONER Writ Petition (Sl No. 2829/2010 Ramavtar Sapre Versus RESPONDENTS South Eastern Coal Fields Limited and others Petition u/A 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri Ramakant Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon21.6.2010) 1. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and respondent No.5 were promoted from time to time vide order dated 1.1.1997 (Annexure P-3), dated 28.6.2002 (Annexure A-4) and order dated 1.12.2005 fromlower to next higher post and on all these occasions, respondent No.5 was shown as junior to the petitioner until seniority list (Annexure A-5) was issued, wherein for the first time, petitioner was placed below the respondent No.5. It is further submitted that in the list showing seniority position, which was obtained under Right to Information Act (Annexure P-6), name of the petitioner has been placed at Sr. No.2, whereas the name ofrespondent No.5 has been placed at Sr. No.6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a representation was made by the petitioner on 4.1.2010 (Annexure P-7) claiming that the petitioner was always treated as senior to respondent No.5, as the petitioner was appointed on 28.12.1992, whereas .-. ^'i^b.. '-^2^ 1 %^^./ 3^^' -2- respondent No.5 was appointed on 4.1.1993 as E.P. Turner Category-I and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be placed over and above respondent No.5 by appropriately modifying the order of promotion dated 1.1.2010 (Annexure P-1). 3. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it expedient to direct respondents No. 1 to 4 to consider and take final decision on petitioner?s representation dated 4.1.2010 (Annexure P-7), within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. Needless to emphasise, if the grievance of the petitioner is not redressed, it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. 5. With the aforesaid observrations, petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen J