^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT_BILASEUB W.P. No. 6728 of 20)6 Petifioner Versus Respondents 1 2. 3. C. H. Masih, S/o ^iri M. Masih, aged about 48 yeare, occupation - Pharmacist»in N.T.P.C. Hosptel, Korba, rssklent <rf Quartor No. AB- 700, Bfock - 4, Yamuna Vihar, Post Office, Jantni'pati, Koitoa, DistrictKorba(CG). National Thermal Power Corporation, Korba, through its Gensra! Manager, Post Office, Pragad Nagar, Korba, District Korba (CG). Chief Personnel Manager (Personnel DepaHment), N.T.P.C. Korba, Pragati Nagar, Korba, Disfrirt Korba (CG). N.T.P.C. Farakka, Birough It General Manager at Farakka (West Bengal). Shaitendra Mukhaqee, son of not known, working as Execufive Class 1, at N.T.P.C. Hospital, Faraldca (West Bengai). SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihofri Shri Gary Muldiopadhyaya, Advocate fbr the petitioner. ORDER (Passed on this tf" day of April, 2007) 1. The petitioner has flled this petition chaflenging the order dated 26.5^006 (Annexure P/27), vAereby the repressntation dated 6.3.2006, submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.1, pursuant to theorcter dated 9.1.2006, passed by thte Court in Writ Pstition No. 4&15 of 1996 has been decided. It has been communicated to the petitkaner that his promotion from WS to W7 grade shail be considsred in DPC-Ju!y, 2Q in terms of the Channel of Promotton. applicable to the post of Pharmacist in !^3 Thakur Workmen category and in terms of fte premotion poticy appticabte for the workmen categofy. 2. From the perusal of ffis impugned order dated 26.5.^06 it is clear that the petitioner was appointed for the post of Pharmacist (W4) in ttie Workmen catsgory, vide appointment tetter dated 26.7.1982 and he had joined his servrces on 5.8.1982. The pefitioner was granted periodical promotions from the post of W-4 to W5 and W5 to W6. Vicfe letter dt. 8.10.1998 the petitioner v/as directed to appear in the trade test/interview for promotion from Bie post of W6 to W7 but he had refused to accept the offer of appearing in the fracte tesMnterview fcr fte promotion. 3. In view ofthe foregoing, when the respondents have consklered and decided the representation of 8ie petitioner in accordance with law, t do not find any rnent in this petition. which deserves to be and is dismissed summarily. —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihom Judge