🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Amitesh Yadu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Case No: Writ Petition (S) No. 3948 Of 2018

Date of Decision: June 18, 2018

Hon'ble Judges: P. Sam Koshy, J

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: Vikash Dubey, Ashutosh Pandey

Final Decision: Disposed Of

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

P. Sam Koshy, J

1. Grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner who was engaged as a Computer Programmer on contract basis since 2009, has been ordered to

be discontinued only on the ground that his ACR for the previous year was graded as 'Good' and it was not 'Very Good'.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had immediately made an application for review of the ACR to the higher authorities

and to his information the same has been reviewed and his grading has been upgraded from 'Good' to 'Very Good', but the same has not been

communicated and in spite of efforts being made, copy of the same has not been served to him. He further submitted that a similarly situated person

namely Suresh Singh Tomar was also identically placed and whose application subsequently has been allowed and he has also been granted extension

of the contract but the same has not been given effect so far as the Petitioner is concerned. He further makes a submission that the Petitioner has

made a detailed representation to Respondent No.2 and that his application is still pending consideration and thus he prays that the representation of

the Petitioner be also objectively decided and the Petitioner be also given similar treatment as has been done in the case of the said similarly situated

person.

3. The relief sought for by the Petitioner is not opposed by the learned State Counsel.

4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that let Respondent No.2 take a decision on the representation made by the

Petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and while deciding the representation, the authorities

concerned shall also take into consideration the contentions raised by the Petitioner in his representation.

5. It is needless to mention that in case the service of the Petitioner has not been discontinued, he would be permitted to be continued till the decision is

taken by Respondent No.2.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction.