1 2025:CGHC:13722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 227 of 2018 1 - Bramha Shankar Pal Son Of Sukhlal Pal Aged About 58 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhanjar Grih Nigam/ State Ware Housing Corporation Raipur Road Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhojram Bisen, Son Of Late Shri Bithora Bisen, Aged About 59 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/ State Ware Housing Corporation, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dayashankar Sharma, Son Of Late Shri Bhairodeen Sharma, Aged About 55 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/ State Ware Housing Corporation, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Bechnuram Yadav, Son Of Late Shri Somaruram, Aged About 57 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/ State Ware Housing Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Ramgopal Yadav, Son Of Shri Sukhruram, Aged About 53 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/ State Ware Housing Corporation, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Surendra Kumar Gauhara, Son Of Shri M. L. Gauraha, Aged About 38 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/ State Ware Housing Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Bhandar Grih Nigam, Pradhan Office N 03, Avanti Vihar Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Manager, Karmik/ Commercial/ Technical/ Account, Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam, Head Office N 03, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents with WPS No. 2987 of 2018 1 - Bramha Shankar Pal Shri Sukhlal Pal, Aged About 58 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/state Ware Housing Corporation Raipur Road, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhojram Bisen, Late Shri Bithoba Bisen, Aged About 59 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/state Ware Housing Corporation Kondagaon, Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dayashankar Sharma, Late Shri Bhairondin Sharma, Aged About 55 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/state Ware Housing Corporation Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Bechnuram Yadav, Late Shri Somaruram Aged About 57 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/state Ware Housing Corporation Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Ramgopal Yadav, Late Shri Sukhruram Yadav, Aged About 53 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/state Ware Housing Corporation Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Surendra Kumar Gauraha, Shri M. L. Gauraha, Aged About 38 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam/state Ware Housing Corporation Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Prabandhak Sanchalak Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam, Head Office- Udyog Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Ringroad No. 1, Raipur, 3 Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manager, Personnel/commercial/technical/account, Chhattisgarh Rajya Bhandar Grih Nigam, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Naresh Kumar Patle, Late Shri Chhoturam C. C. H. 4th Class, Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Branch Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner No.6 : Mr. Surendra Kumar Gauraha, present in person. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.03.2025 1. In the present cases, one of the petitioners, namely, Surendra Kumar Gauraha appeared in person and sought permission to argue the matter. He also submitted that he has been authorized to represent other petitioners. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Gauraha and further considering that the cases are pending since 2018, he was permitted to make submissions. 2. The petitioners have filed WP(S) No. 227 of 2018 seeking therein a direction to respondents No.1 & 2 to decide the pending representation within a stipulated time whereas, in WP(S) No.2987 of 2018, the petitioners have challenged the promotion order of respondent No.3 dated 23.3.2018, whereby he was promoted from a Class-IV post to the post of Junior Assistant. The contention -4- raised by Mr. Gauraha is that respondent No.3, who is junior to the petitioners, has been promoted to the post of Junior Assistant, superseding the petitioners who are above respondent No.3 in the gradation list. He would further submit that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2006 and their names have not been considered for promotion to the next higher post by the respondent authorities. He would also submit that one more employee has been promoted during the pendency of these petitions. He would contend that a direction may be issued to respondent No.1 to decide the claim of the petitioners with regard to their promotion. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant extending the benefit of reservation, as he belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, and the post of Junior Assistant for promotion was reserved for that particular category. He would further contend that if the petitioners would make representation(s) before respondent No.1, the same would be decided strictly in accordance with the law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant vide order dated 23.3.2018. The promotion order would reflect that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. The contention made 5 by counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 that the post of Junior Assistant was reserved for a member of Scheduled Caste, therefore, the name of respondent No.3 was considered, which appears to be correct. The petitioners, who were appointed in the year 2006 as Class-IV employees, have not been considered by respondents No.1 & 2 for promotion to the next higher post till date. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) before respondents No. 1 and 2 within a period of 15 days and in turn, respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher post in an objective manner, strictly in accordance with the service rules, preferably, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), both the petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi