SUBHASH BABOO SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been preferred seeking the following relief (s):

(2.) The brief facts of this case in short are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector of Fisheries on 10/1/1975 and he had completed 20 years of service without break in the year 1995. The Government of M.P. vide Circular dtd. 24/1/2008, framed a policy, to grant time bound promotion to employees who have completed 10 years or 20 years service as on 1/4/2006. The respondents have granted the benefit of time bound promotion to 45 juniors by order/list dtd. 25/6/2009 while the name of petitioner was not mentioned in the list/order. Thereafter, the petitioner was filed a representation dtd. 25/8/2009 and thereafter he was filed a writ petition no.4010/2010 which was disposed of by order dtd. 31/1/2011. Respondents were directed in following manner:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the benefit has been extended to juniors but same benefit has not been extended to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted a representation dtd. 2/8/2014. Thereafter, the respondents had issued a order dtd. 11/5/2015. The case of petitioner has also considered on 9/12/2014 but at the relevant point of time, the confidential report of the petitioner is not available, therefore, the case of petitioner had not been considered and also mentioned in the order, whenever the confidential report is available. The case of petitioner was considered by the committee. It is further submitted that till yet, the case of petitioner has not been considered by the respondents. The rules pertaining to Kramonnati and promotion are the same. If the ACR for the relevant year is not available for any reason, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the ACR of the preceding year.