d^ ^^ IVL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. W^^ / 2010 PETITIONER Suresh Kumar Pradhan S/o. Shri Santosh Pradhan, aged about 54 ,^1^<9'f^'^yb>^ years, R/o. Block Colony, Saraipali, \^? .«••'•°' ^ l^^s^^^ ,.--""(ov-/L>^',,,, '' District Mahasamund (C.G.) ^\' t^t^^"t<> ^f-y^ , • RESPONDENTS %, i^^ i f.\. ' /.^h ff ^^f/' c'fT ^^€vw'^^ VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, the Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Directorate, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. ^ Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Directorate, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA ~5^ '<ii<<i<n^ yiTii'^Ko, rs|dl-H!j,< '(^ ) (^e) ^mOT Wlicn & h> ^200 3?n^T <<T3R5l ( y<i^<itsT) ST^W^FT'RFTW TT8ff 3?T^T syi^ich yRTTW^f^T^H^T §o_;non5bieShri ^ianirsura ivlohan 13'08'2010 Ms. Naushina Aii, counsei for Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Depufry- Ad The' case of the petjtioner.is tl internai Auditor and Taxatlon Offjc<= Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer < changed anu caiied Assistant intema It is submitted that when ser date of initiai appointment of the 28/03/19o6. ne came to know aboL iepresentation bringtng it to the notic' of the initiai date of appojntmeril Subsequently, the respondents Issi whereln the correct date of initjai app| pi-acing in the gradation ji^t based o] has not been recorded. The respol 15/07/2010 bwvhich petltionertsas n| persons. appointed after the petitione| representation has been rnade, the s| Taking into conslderation, the | thls Court and also consldering that t| list dated 25/06/2010 have correctiyl of the peutioner, petitioner's claini gradation iist accordlng to his inltial con^ld^ff-ri tay thp r^p^n^»nt^ <sM^(^<fl»ltTW^ff ^* fe^t <P>l^{< ^^iRwa>Ty^T .Shrivastava, J- hepeyyonef, ' ,. v-ocate General for the State. mt the petiuoner is working as Assistant T. Peutioner was eariler appointed as ind now nomenclatur^ of the post has Audjtor and Taxation Gfricer. ilorjty' list d-ated 1/4/09 -w-as IssUed, the petitioner was wrongly mentloned as t the said error and the petiyoner 5'ofthe respondents that the actual date is 28/03/1980 and not 28/03/1986. icd another graclatlon Ilst on 25/OS/10 jintment has been mentioned but prqper n the coHect of Initial appointHient ideofcs have issue^ promotion order. on )t been promoted and a nyriiuer ofjunior ", have been granted prornotlon, Though ime has faijed to evoke any response. grievance raised bythe petitioner before ie respondents by subsequent gradatlon • recofded the JnltiaS of appointment ror accordlng proper piacerrient m the date of appolntment is requlred to be ^ M 'w^. ^•^•^^ p& ""% ? €.. ^:vnf^ •^^•^SP^- I-HC—78 3:n^T^FT R^icb ^T^TT 3TT^?T 5D^w ^ I'liiiriii Hw^t ff»*is<=r» 'S^ -^WW^, ®Tll-H41<o, [c«vll-H^< _-.........l^^):,^0,.,^J^ ^.........•..-:..A..^...^......:.........^^QQ 3T1^?T TI^T ( ^f^^) ^^TW^f^T 37T^?T •X- Accordingiy, respondent representation of the petitioner. along "vvith copy of representatlonl No.2 within a period of one month| appropriate declsion cn petitione? s i within a reasonabie period and n| sybmisslon of the representatlon ar| in case, It is found that 111 petitlonei- was -wTong piacement ir1 aiso consider peutloner3s claim for ^ <sM^(<n<fli 'WT^if ^f fe^ <r3i^i< '^^ffima^i^T |No.2 is uirected to consider the yetitioner shall submlt copy of this order earlier subrnitted before the respondent |from today. Respondent No2 shaii take I'epresentatlon and in accordance with law t>t iater than 4 months from the date of 1d a copy of this order. |e only rea^on for non-piuniotlon of the the senlority list, respondent No.2 shaii Iromouon'from due date. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [-.