1 2025:CGHC:34693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1203 of 2021 1 - V. P. Yadav S/o Late Shri B. P. Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Q. No. C- 91, Urja Nagar, Gevra Project, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Coal India Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Coal Bhawan, Compound No. 04, Mar, Plot No. Af-Iii, Action Area-1a, Newtown, Rajarhaat, Kolkata, West Bengal 2 - South Eastern Coaldields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director (Technical/o) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Area Manager Chirmiri Open Cast Mine, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, P. O. Chirmiri Colliery, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 6 - Colliery Manager Chirmiri Open Cast Mine, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, P. O. Chirmiri Colliery, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate alongwith Ms. Mahi Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate alongwith Ms. Chetana Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.07.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to rectify the PRIDE rating which has been arbitrarily lowered by the accepting officer and grant all the consequential benefits including promotion. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and correct the pride rating of the petitioner. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioners including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Mining Sirdar under the respondents on 20.6.1991. He would contend that the pride rating of the petitioner for the year 2015- 16 was lowered down by the accepting authority and against the said adverse remarks, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.3 on 6.4.2018, which was received by the concerned authority on 9.7.2019. He would contend that the said representation has not been decided till date and prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation strictly in accordance with the law, in an objective manner, within a stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that according to the applicable rules, the petitioner was required to submit a representation within a period of 15 days from the date of 3 communication of the pride rating. He would contend that the petitioner submitted the representation on 9.7.2019 seeking upgradation of the pride rating for the year 2015-16 and thus, the same is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The ACR/pride rating for each year is made available by the employer on its website via the HRMS Portal. The petitioner was awarded lower pride rating for year 2015-16 and submitted a representation in this regard on 9.7.2019, which has not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities. Although the learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner failed to submit a representation within the prescribed period of 15 days, considering that the pride rating was lowered by the accepting authority, in the interest of justice, the respondent authorities should consider the claim of the petitioner on merits. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.3 and, in turn, the concerned authorities are directed to decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi