^ ^ m THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. 3^^ OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS /.- ~^- >;^k Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava, son of Late L.P. Shrivastava, aged about 57 years, working as an Account Officer, office of PCCF, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, Tehsil & District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1.<^" State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Finance Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ^' 2. The Commissioner Treasury, Account & Pension, Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). 3.^ Hari Narayan Sharma, Account Officer, PMGSY Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 4. Tirupati Rao Patnayak, Account Officer, Raj Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA *SI»<?!F^lNKfi ^^T '^l'MKrl^l, ytll-(-!4t(o, fs|<yfi<Lllj,< ..Zsa9..c^..3..^j.3/^-^200 ^?r "q^^ (^i?^<^r) 3?T^T ^T'f^t^T T[8iT 371^1 iF^W t- i^TTW^^^T^T fSB s Hoa'ble Skrt MaBiindra B 30.6.2011 Mr. V.K. Paadey, counsel| Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel L| 1& 2, on advance copy. Heard on admission. Leamed counsel for the record of the petitioner was u\ proiiiotion to tlie next higher 2004, he was illegaUy supersecj 3 & 4 were promoted. He fiir^ made, the representation of tt-| one line order pa.ssed on 23. found fit. by the departitiental petitioner kept on making rep( has been promoted vide orderj 6), but the seniorit5^ has not the date his juniors were now, the petitioner has agair< 2009 (Annexure P-7), which h^ The petitiouer suffered representation made, his rep^ dated 23.12.2004, stating thaf ^prf^N 'HFT^ff ^ fs^l Tf^^R '^^tRRsS??^! ,ohan Shri^asta¥a,.J»] br the petitiouer< wyer for the State/respondents No. jpetitioner submits that tliough the ^iblemished and he was entitled for )ost of Accouuts Ofllcer? iu the yeai' [ed and his jimiors- respondents No. |Iier submits that on representation petitioner was illegally rejected by .2.2004 that the pctitioner W^LS not )romotion committ.ee. Thereafter, fhe 'esentationvS and now the petitioner |dated 13th July, 2009 (Annexure P- (>een accorded to fhe petitioner from pr^moted m the year 2004. Therefore, made representation on 20th July, i.s remained uudecided. supersession in the year 2004. On 'esentation was rejected vide order he was not found \it for promotion. :y XI-HC—78 "S^ ^l^llcn^ ^ti11H4t<o, f®t<rll^^< ^ip-^r^^p^ "^ 200 ^t^T T^l^ ((icif^<^) 3TT^T ^T f<ylJch ??^T 3^T^T ^^w Praveea ^iTWHft^T ^n^T 2 - That was not challenged b}| Now the petitioner has been I am not inclined to interferel is at liberty to piirsue his repj With the aforesaid disposed of. the petltioner before any aiithority. jpromoted in tlie year 2009. Therefore, |in the matter. However, tlie petitioner fesentatlon. o|bservations, the petition is fmally cr)j^F<n^1l '^TR^F ^ fe^ Tf^^R '^^R3^T Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^^ Bi IBS Rll BB