t^ v^^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF BILASPUR AT CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (S) No.O^J^ OF 2010 ^ PETITIONER ^v^^ Puran Lal Sahu, S/o. Shri Awadh Ram Sahu, aged about 48 years, working as Peon, Pre-Middle School, Tarekela, Block Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS L 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D. K. S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C. G.) / 2) Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C. G.) 3) ~ Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C. G.) 4) Head Master, Pre-Middle School Turekela, Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Murlidhar Sharina, S/o. Keshav Prasad Sharma, Assistant Grade-III, Govt. High School Bijana, Block Tamnar, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 6) Shyam Sunder Patel, S/o. Jhaneshwar Patel, aged about 38 years, Assistant Grade-III, office of the Block Office, Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh District Raigarh (C. G.) ^A/ ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3TI^T ^T'f^iN? WT^T^T^lt^ ^. B^ST ^i^itf^, ^Ti1-(H<i<o, I®i<ni-M^< [^ ^v *11*1CTI ^»^<l^» '?° W^ 200 3ff^?T 'T^W (^lf^^T) '^^nw^^^Ti^ SB: Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diivaker ^hl^^l^ '^FT^ff ^f fe^t <pai^l< ^sffim^^ 29.10.2010: Shri Ajay Barik counsel for tl|ie petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai PLforthe|respondents/State. By this petition the petitioneiS has prayed for issuance of direction to grant benefit of promotion with all cj3nsequential benefits. It is submitted that the petjtioner who was initially working as a Contingency Paid Employee/Dail 3.1.1987, later on, after completi Earlier, the petitioner had filed Wage Employee with effect from on of three years as a Daily Wage employee, appointed as an empl(|)yee of Work charged Establishment. ^ petition before this Court claiming regularization and promotion, wherjein an order was passed directing the respondent authorities to decide hi^ passed by this Court, the Assista] representation. In compliance oforder \\{ Commissioner, Tribal Development passed an order on 20.5.2008 holc|ing that as no yacancies are available, case of the petitioner would be cojnsidered on availability of vacancy as also in view of the appropriate dir| regard to filling up the backlog po\ (Annexure P-2), the petitioner has] the post of Peon. Learned coun^ respondents 4 and 5 who were a^ appointment of the petitioner as] ^ctions by the State Government with >t. Finally, vide order dated 10.1.2009 been granted regular appointment on el for the petitioner submits that as pointed after 31.12.1988 i.e. after the Daily Wage employee, have been XI-HC—78 r ! sn^r^t-^fi ^ihF WT '3TTOT $n«iien ^ Tf ^sr ^TFn^r, '^fhm^, Hdiy^ ^I*ICTI «»*<sct»•••"••••— "—^ 200 ^l^fT TT5R7 ( ytf^^) '?^TW;aft^ 31T^T regularized/promoted on the post entitled for the same benefit. From the averments made cM^^ii WR^ ^ 'fexst <r3i^i< cfr^TfiR^?^ ^)f Peon, therefore, the petitioner is also in the petition and the grievance raised in the representations, it is found t^at the petitioner has claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Grac respondents 4 and 5 were regul disclosed in the petition. From aj clear that all these persons were petitioners. The petitioner has m^ promotion on the ground thatj regularized and then promoted. le-111. However, the date on which, ^rly appointed as Peon, has not been perusal of order dated 20.5.2008, it is jranted regular appointment prior to the 9e representation on 4.1.2010 claiming persons appointed after him were Taking into consideration fie nature of grievance involved in this petition, it would be open for the|respondents/authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner and ta^e appropriate decision on the same, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directioi^, the petition is finally disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has nol expressed any opinion on the merits of thecase. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge