Rl Kl ^K^^'¥: ^ . ^2<^^ THE HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTIsSOARH AT BILASPUR WRITPET[nON(S)¥IQ.4$t^-^72010 PETinONERS BSI ^l^^;^i Btlffi an' U rl''i»:l'' flffilH1 fl^ iK» ^mm ^y •^M/ "• s ^lr?/ .^"J f7/ :^ sffl <•" 1« &Wff ifl-l'.')l. i\^s^ »* ll!! H 1. Manqj Sarkar S/o M.N Sarkar aged^ aboiit 42 year^ R/o Kusiiiunda Dist. Koi-ba (C.G), 2. Ghan&hyam daiswal S/oJasdeQ Prasad^ aged about 40 year R/o KusmundaDist. Korba(C.G). 3. Subhendu Ghatak S/o S.N. Ghatak^aged about 40 year R/o Kusmunda Disf. Korba (C.G). 4. Bharat Lal Kurrey S/o Vishram Kurrey. aged about 46 year. K/o Kusmunda Dist. Korba.(C.G). 5. S.R Khunte S/o Mohar Sai aged aboiit 46 year. R/Q Kusmunda Dist. KorBa -.(C.G). ,: ; : :::. •::." .:'- 6. Adeep Kumar S/aDau W.^Qsged about 48 year, R/o Kusmunda Dist.Korba(C.G). 7. K:K Tiwari ~S/o M.P.Tiwari, aged abot.it 41 year R/b Kusmurida Dist. Korba(C-G). ^ 8. Rajesh Kumar Tripafhi g/o S.R \ Tnpath^aged aboat 43 yea? R/o Kusmunda Dist KQrba(C.G) 9.' Manish Kumar ©u^ DubG^agedaboiit4tyear.R/o KusHrunda DisC Korba:(C.Gj } ^m VERSUS ^ff.^.^n': ^' RESPONDEN'FS t.<^ Union oflndia, Thrpugh the Secretary, Minisfry of Cbal, Shastri Bhawan, N^w Dethi'; 2. ^ ^ ^ Coal India Limited, Through the ehairman, Coal India Liniited, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata 700001 South Eastem Cpal Fields Limited, Throug^i the GMD (Chairman-cym-Managing Du-ector) g.E.G.L. Seepat R6a|d, Bilaspi.ir, District Bilaspyr (C.G.) TheDireetor(PersQnnel) - • SQUtKEaytemGoaTFieldDtd. Seepat Rciaid, Bilaspur (C.©,) Direct&r (Persolial 86 Industnal Relatiohs) Coal India Limtted, 10, Netaji Si.ibhasK Road, Kolkata 700 D01 WMTPETITIONUNDERAR'ri^t®226 OFTHE eONS'm"(JTIONOEIN©lA !|i ,i"'<^ li(! \x m ^7;g^ 78 ail^l^t^iw WTrsn^Tspqw ^ 'S^ '<<i<ii<iAf, eiTil.M'ie, fsiciiy^< ^_ {M-(^ -..GB1^0 sn^r 'TSW ('^fg^f) wmw^fetsiitn ITINKI 18-11-2010: Shri Arvind Kumar Dube^, Smt. Smitha Ghai, couns|el for respondent No. 1. As Shri Praveen Das, Advocat oners South Eastern Coalfields Limi to accept the notice on behalf c| Counsei for the petitis i.e. W.P. (S) No. 3657/2010, 22.7.2010 and the present petif ofthesaidorder. Counsel for the respond( petition is also disposed of in passed by this Court. Petitioners who are pre^ (Technica! and Supervision) Gj No. 3, have approached of t'neir case for promotion in 4 promotion contained in off|< promuigated by the Coal indis Submission of learned according to the policy, 40% of|' year in various discipiine up by way of promotion on d^ te who normaiiy appears for the id js present in the Court, i's dirscted jf the respondents No. 2 to 5. submits that in an identical matter |hi's Court has passed the order on pion can a!so be disposed of in terms nciuUin ^ra^'^'l T^S^ ^^^ <N^.n ir afRfT 3n^?r , counsel for the petitioners. for ints have no objectiQn if the present tis liaht of the order dated 22.7.2010 Qr, '^ent!y working as Foreman Incharge ^rade-A in the service of respondent Qourt aggrieved by non-consideration ^ccordance Vi/ith the existing policy fjce memorandum dafed 7/3/2C [.td., the holding company. |counse! for the petitioners is that '[the post to be filled up in the financis jping mining are required to be f!!!ed ipartmental basis from amongst the ^ '^.. I-HC—78 ~r'FT"" srr^i qa h-6* WI SW^S *NI'* D/- '3'^ '*ii<4i<n<i, ®TT|'H<IS,fqoi'yy SII^T'T??;' (^crf^SI^ET) ^nw ^i??[ aiit^i »—'^" eiigible officers holding feeder| adhering to the policy and whil^ 2007 the eiigible candidates ar^ accordlng to the existing polic| highlighting grievance, a to respondents No. 2, 3 and petitioner remains unredressed.l Taking into considerationj appropriate to direct grievance of the petitloner. Acci] made'in this regard to the promotion shall be considere^ promotional scheme in accord^ not take any decision on grievances are not redressed, i|l approach this Court or take r^ available to them under the law.| With the aforesaid of. ^i^iiirfitft-rf tn^tt "^* f^sl" <p>i^i< ^rsffinsn^i posts but the respondents are not direct recruitment is going on, since not being considered for promotion f of promotion. It is submitted that intation has been made on 11/10/09 4 but even then grievance of the ihe nature of grievance, it would be ^nts No. 2 and 3 to consider the }rdingiy, on a detaiied representation No. 2 and 3, their claim for {) in accordance with the existlng jnce with law. If the respondents do [jietitioners' representation or their i|t would be open for the petitioner to jcourse to such remedy as may be obsen^tions, the petition is final!y disposed Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge