® IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH at BILASPUR‘ $E§€C¢H4 PETITIONER / D. K. SUSHIL S/o Shri. H.M.SUSHIL Aged about 52 Years, Employed as Draughtsman Gr. II, Telecam Factory, Hathkhoj, BHILAI — 490026 Dt. Durg Residing at : TypeHII, Telecom Exchange Compound, Sector—1, BHILAI Dist : Durg z 1, Union of India Through : The Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Deptt. of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhavan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi. RESPONDENTS 7‘ \yy‘x swam - vto (V a ,L‘p cl Y set? Assg§ii§éoge“ wigmé‘h “in“‘i‘ / 2. The Dy. Director General Telecom Factories, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 7m Floor, Statesman House, l B-148, Barakhambha Road, ‘ Cannaught Place, New Delhi. 3. The Chief General Manager, Telecom Factories Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Wright Town, JABALPUR (MP) K 4« A.R.Ramteke E. /” S/o Shri. Ramchandra Ramteke Draughtsman Gr.— I Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Wright Town, JABALPUR (MP) 5. Arvind Kumar Nema S/o Shri. Tarachand Nema Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited , Wright Town, JABALPUR (MP) ' ‘ “c WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TPE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR TH-x, ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ORDER AND DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARY MANDAMUS ETC. E x—ric42‘ ’ ‘ WENfAIMgux/ugg m ’ ........ ,Wa, : r - ' L 2 mamwmwm @“wwga _ » awmm ' £42956 _ S‘hri‘BP. Rad, Advocata fGr the pej timer. Hearéj “ _ B‘ the mgtant pmmm the petmo €r has grayed for a direwon to respmdem ' No3 to demde vancyus reprasentationa ma e by mm rght from the year 19% m 2606 , L The case of the he’ntoher is that h was appo'n r1 as Draughts’hah Grade H on 4 1 1980 m the pay 5M? at Rs u30 5601- hd respandent No 11 & o were also appmnted as_ Draughtsm’ah Gradev 0h 21 1981 8: 1 11 198G respeotvey Further cass 0f the petitionef §S tha€ hmrhohon t0 me pasL 0‘ raughtsman rade-l ha$to be, made fmm the ;:o$tofDraughtsmah Grade-H onfhe basz of5eh10hb but'thereworwdehts ignoringthe seman‘y of the petitioner harem promote respmdeht was 4 & 5 whe are junior‘to tr peti‘aeher m the post cf Draughtsman rade When the permoner came rs knew about the satd promatlmsm the year 199 e made first repreeehta‘r on and thereafter . ccnhhuouety made representahon to resmdeht No a m the year 1996, 199? 19953 2000 70Da & 20% but the same are “rot e hg decrded Therefare 1earhed couneer for fhe petrtrcner suemrts that reepohdem N 3 be directed to decide the represemahons made by the petltteher ’ et for the pettt'oher appears to beiath juet . and reasonable therefore the petmoner s drrected to eubmt the copies of his earier The prayer made by teamed oou L repr entattons a eng With oeey or th s o§er to respehdeht No 3 and sh tum respondent No 3 s d rested to decrda the represent Irene of the petrtmher m accordance wth aw Wtthm a penod of three months from the d te o‘ receipt of the repreeematroh wen atahdo drapoeed oft Wtth the drreotroh aforeaard the p Certfted copy as per rates In vrew of true order l A No 3999{5 stems deposed o Sd/- LC. Bhadoo Judge W 7A V,M,.,,(A :tntaetaa osan/e Rh :‘ 7 x2"w , s ~ f f