High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 03 CHH CK 0251

SATISH KUMAR MISHRA vs SHRI SUDESH KUMAR SUNDRANI

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 23 March 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CONT No. 79 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 403 words
1.

By order dated 08.05.2017, the writ petition, bearing WPS No.5974 of 2007, was allowed in the following terms:

 “i. The respondent Municipal Corporation shall grant annual increments to the petitioner on and from completion of 1st year of service and grant

him due seniority on the post in accordance with law. However, the issue of promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector shall be re-examined by the

respondents, for which the petitioner shall prefer representation before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg within a period of three

months from today and thereafter the Corporation shall decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of 3 months.

ii. The entire arrears towards annual increments shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.â€​

2.

Learned counsel for the contemnor would submit that the entire arrears of annual increments admissible to the petitioner has already been paid to

him, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

In respect of further promotion on account of grant of seniority to the petitioner from the date of first appointment, it is stated by Shri Satish Gupta,

learned counsel for the Contemnor that in Annexure C-3 itself there is an order for restoration of seniority from 19.11.1981. Petitioner's further

promotion to the post of AG-II has already been ordered on 7.10.2017 which has been made effective retrospectively from 22.09.1998.

4.

By another order issued on the same day i.e. 07.10.2017, the Commissioner has sought permission from the State Government to create one post of

Office Superintendent for promoting the petitioner on the said post. Thus, the petitioner's case for promotion has already been undertaken by the

Corporation.

5.

Insofar as, the claim for promotion on the post of R.I., the same has been rejected on the ground of non-availability of the said channel of promotion

to the petitioner.

6.

In view of the above, the contempt petition is disposed of with observation that the Municipal Corporation shall pass necessary order regarding

promotion of the petitioner on the post of Office Superintendent within a period of 3 months from today. The State Government shall extend the fullest

cooperation to the Municipal Corporation in sanctioning the post, so that the order passed by this Court is complied with.

7.

Orders passed by the State Government in favour of petitioner is retained in the record of this contempt petition.