1 2025:CGHC:30262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6977 of 2018 1. Hiralal Bakna S/o Shri Halkoo Ram Bakna Aged About 52 Years Posted As Mechanical (Creda), Regional Office, Raipur, R/o Lig 1036, Sector 6, Housing Board Colony, Saddu Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Devraj Deshmukh S/o Late Shri Fugwaram Deshmukh Aged About 51 Years Posted As Mechanical (Creda), Regional Office, Mahasamund, R/o Purani Basti, Near Shiv Mandir, Kohka, Ward No. 09, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Sanjay Kumar Gedam S/o Late Shri D. Gedam Aged About 52 Years Posted As Mechanical (Creda), Regional Office, Bilaspur, R/o Samta Colony, Kumharpara, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Mangal Das S/o Shri Bhare Lal Aged About 52 Years Posted As Mechanical (Creda), Regional Office, Raipur, R/o Lig, 1031, Sector 6, Housing Board Colony, Saddu Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Energy, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Renewable Energy Development Agency V. I. P. Road (Airport Road), Near Energy Education Park, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Diksha Gauraha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateek Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.04 10:01:18 +0530 2 03. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion on the post Sub Engineer from the post of Mechanic w.e.f. completion of 5 years of service. 10.2 That, to grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstance of the case, including awarding of the cost to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the State of Chhattisgarh has notified the rules namely Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (CREDA) Employees/Officers Service Recruitment Condition Classification & Appeal) Rules, 2004. She would further submit that the petitioners are working under respondent No. 2 on the post of mechanic. She would also submit that according to the service rules, after the completion of 5 years of services, the petitioners were eligible for promotion to the post of Sub-Engineers. She would contend that according to the earlier service rules, 50% posts of Sub-Engineers were reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% from promotion, but the ratio was changed to 90% from direct recruitment and 10% from promotion by inserting amendment. She would further contend that due to amendment in the Rules, the names of the petitioners could not be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Engineers. She would also contend that the Superintendent Engineer vide Annexure P/5 dated 08.05.2018, made a recommendation to promote the mechanics, who have completed 8 years or more even if they are not diploma holders, to the post 3 of Technical Assistants. It is argued that petitioners No. 1 & 2 were appointed on 27.11.1989, petitioner No. 3 on 23.03.1990 and petitioner No. 4 on 02.04.1994, but till date, their names have not been considered for promotion. She would pray that the petitioners may be permitted to make representations before respondent No. 2, and in turn, the authority concerned may be directed to decide it strictly in accordance with the law. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that the executing agency is the State. She would further submit that the rules were framed by the State Government; therefore, the decision, if any, may be taken by the State. 4. Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that the petitioners are employees of respondent No. 2 and the decision can be taken by respondent No. 2 with regard to promotion. He would further submit that in para 6 of the return, respondent No.2 has stated that the claim of the petitioners and similarly situated employees are being considered. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 2 and the recruitment rules were framed in the year 2004 by the State with regard to the recruitment and other conditions of service of the petitioners, it can safely be held that respondent No. 2 is the competent authority to take a decision, therefore, the petitioners are permitted to make representations before respondent No. 2, and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide the representations so made by the petitioners, preferably within a period of 150 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant