c^\ b :f^' S! IILTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION^O.<t?2;^>..QFL2011 PETITIONER .^^l^- .?sa^-' •A® s^- ^•* RESPONDENTS Horilal Shamia, Son of Late Shri Madan Lal Shamia, Aged about 51 years, Occupation, Service posted as Naib Tahsildar at Jhalap, District- Mahasainund, (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Revenue Department, Raipur (C.G.). Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. li4 PE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG.WH AT BIL^PUR WRIT PETITION (S)No. 2-295 of2011 Horilal Shaniia. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisearh & Others. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSIITUriON OF INDIA Present: Shfi Awadh Tripathi, Advoeate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocafe General for the State,- respondents. (Passsd on 02nti day ot'May, 2011) Ey this petition. the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representations dated 19.10.2010 and 16.12.2010 wliich .are pending consideration before the respondent autliorities. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitionei' submits that the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Tahsildar ignoi-ma the petitioner and some of tiiem have been posted as Deputy Collector. It is farther subniitted that the Departmental Promotion Conimittee has considered the naine of the petitioner for promotion as on the year 1987 aiid the other similarly sitoated candidates have been graiited promotion ignoring the ciaim of the petitipner. Tlms, the action of the respondent authorities are illegal. arbitrai^ and bad in the eve of lavv. A representation in this regard was a!so made on 19.10.2010 and subsequently, on 16.12.2010, but the same ai-e pending consideratioa till date. On the other hand, Shri Thata.ir, leamed Deputv Advocate General appearmg for fhe State/respondents submits that pursuairt to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 627/2003, on 30.03.2010, the DeDartmental Promotion Conmiittee recoimnended the name of the petitioner for fixation of his seniority and gi-aiit of promotioii. Thereafter, vide ordei- dated 11.09.2010 (-^nnexiire P'4), the pstitioner was graiited seniority and vvas promoted to the post of Nayab Tahsildar, on probation for a period oftwo years fi-om the "^k. .^,.^;^^ ^:^.: "•. *&.-. :^, ••^:-slj Af 's'.dir ^ 1 7. date lusjuniorjoinsd on the post ofNaib Tahsildar i.e. 29.10.1987. Ir was farther made ciear that no aiTears of salan' would be paid for the said period on the principle of 'no work-no pay aiid the same shall only be reckoned for the purpose of ssmority. Thus, the promotion graiited to the petitioner was a iiotional promotion Heard Seamed counsel appearmg for the parties, perused the pleadiiigs aiid documents appended thereto. According to the pleadings oftiie petitioner himself, the petitioner was gi-anted notional semority and promotion on tiie post of Naib Tahsildar. It is farther stated by the petitioner that his juniors have been promoted to the post of Deputy Collector ignoring the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has not pi-oduced aay document indicating asto wliat was the criteria tbr promotion and w4iether, the candidature of the petitioner was considered or not. The petitioner has actually worked oa tlie post of Naib Talisildar only arter 11.09.2010, and not priorto.that. Thejumors to the petitioner miglit have worked on the post ofNaib Talisildar for a substaaitial period. Even otherwise, if the case of the petitioner is considered for promotion as on date, the other candidates who have ali'eady joined the post of Deputy Collector would be aftected, who have not been impleaded as party respondents in tlus petition. Tiius, on tlus count alone, the petition fails. So far as the representations ofthe petitioner, as stated above, are concemed, the petitioner may pursue lus representation, if so advised. In view of the above, tlie writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. -- - Sd/- K. Agnihoti-i Judge 'Aimt