%§%g% a? €91 lam?” @ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT ’OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR y; 7 LCHHAT'TISGARH ) w.P. s No. 94 8’} 12010 v/ ”)Dhannendra Kumar Mane, S/o Shri Ramprasad Mane, aged about 45 years,‘ R/o Arya Nagar, Behind Water Tank Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS PETITIONER w\ RESPONDENT 1.” State ofChhattisgarh, 1' Through- the Secretary Agriculture Department, D.K.S. Bhawah, Raipur, Distt. Ratpur (C.G.) 2. Director Agriculture Department, Director Office Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 1g 3. Dy.Director Agriculture, Dy. Director Office, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTlTUTlON ' OF INDIA S E‘a W, Wm, WEI wmw?(§)~vw8y)%voo mm (ma) mmw WWW Wma‘i‘ fw1m WWW $Wm 53 : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan shrivastava, J. 12$8-201o Shri T. K. Tiwari, counsei forhe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Adi/ocate for the State/respondents on advance copy. Heard. Grievance of the petitioner as set out in the petition is that though he has been working as a Tracer s 1993, he has not been considered and promoted to the next higher p of Draftsman in the Department of Agricuiture. it is submitted that i the year 1998, two juniors to the petitioner were promoted on the of Draftsman, eversince then, the petitioner has been making repre ation for consideration of his case ed on record memo dated 13-09— 2006, 23-11-2007, 03-12—2007 and titioner has been forwarded to the namely Director (Agricuiture), Joint Director (Agricuiture) and Deputy Di ector (Agricuiture) from time to time. Submission of learned counsel fort e petitioner is that as the petitioner’s service record is unblemished and he post of Draftsman is lying vacant and that the petitioner is continuln for the last 17 years on one post, respondents ought to consider his c se for promotion. Taking into consideration th nature of grievance raised by the petitioner and also that on several occasions since? 2004, case of the petitioner has been forwarded to the higher authorities for consideration, it would be proper to direct respond nt No.2 to consider the case of the o t e n t for promotion. The petitioner has s t 2004, 21-07-2005, 18-11-2005, 15 18-01—2010, by which, case of the higher authorities for consideratio We i ‘ i c — e - p n L j} ”era W, m,m . w ?G‘/wvw§iy.zgvoo mm mm (Wm vmmm WWW mmmw «L,_ WW§§€VW $a1‘1wawm petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law, with regard to petitioner’s ciaim within ar ‘outer iimit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Neediess to emphasize, in case, grievance of the petitioner still remaingunredressed, he would be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him umder the law. With the aforesaid direction, tt‘e petition is finally disposed of. Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane