Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. A.K. Jha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
2025:CGHC:31600
Date: 2025.07.16
10:44:42 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8355 of 2018
1 - Dr. A.K. Jha S/o Shri B. Jha Aged About 50 Years District- Hospital,
Bilaspur, Distirct- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health,
Manatrlaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Health Services, Directorate Health Services, Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Tejasva Deo, Advocate holding the
brief of Mr. Sunil Otwani,Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta,
Additional Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
09/07/2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
10.1 That, the petitioner respectfully prays for issuance of
suitable writ / direction for directing the respondent authorities to
refix the notional seniority of the petitioner from the day the
petitioner was entitled to get promoted on the post of Surgical
Specialist.
10.2 Any other relief / reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with
cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.
2. Mr. Tejasva Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that in the year 2018, the petitioner was posted as Medical
2
Officer at District Hospital, District Bilaspur. He would contend that the
petitioner was holding a degree of M.S. (General Surgery) and that
degree was obtained by him in the year 1986. He would further
contend that WPS No. 5466/2006 was filed claiming therein the benefit
of senior pay scale / promotional benefits and in reply filed by the
State, it was stated that the said benefit has already been extended
and the claim of the petitioner would be considered for senior pay
scale. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2009.
He would further submit that respondent No.1 made a communication
with the petitioner on 22.04.2010 and assured that the benefit of
promotion would be extended to the petitioner. He would also submit
that the petitioner made representations before the respondent
authorities, but no heed was paid. He would contend that the petitioner
has already got retired from services. He would further contend that the
petitioner was entitled to promotion and other consequential benefits,
but the same has not been extended, therefore, a direction may be
issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the
petitioner.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the
petitioner has claimed notional seniority and other benefits attached to
the post of Surgical Specialist including promotion. Mr. Gupta would
further submit that the petitioner in the entire petition has not pleaded
the date from which he is entitled to get promotion and seniority. He
would contend that in the earlier round of litigation, the petition was
disposed of with the liberty to make a representation and the
respondent authorities were directed to consider it. He would also
3
submit that thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Surgical Specialist vide order dated 25.07.2018. He would state that
the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefits attached to the post
from the date of promotion and not from the retrospective date as held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West
Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 (14) SCALE 294.
He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
5. Perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner was promoted
to the post of Surgical Specialist vide order dated 25.07.2018 and the
pay scale attached to the said post was granted to the petitioner vide
Annexure - P/5 dated 28.09.2018. The petitioner was posted to the
post of Surgical Specialist at District Hospital, Bilaspur, thus, the
grievance of the petitioner with regard to promotion was redressed.
6. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for notional benefits, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) has
categorically held that the claim of the Government Servant with regard
to notional benefits after retirement cannot be considered with
retrospective effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 15 & 19
held as under:-
"15. The primary question that arises for our
consideration in the present appeal is whether
respondent No.1, who was recommended for the
promotion before his retirement but did not receive
actual promotion to the higher post due to
administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial
benefits of the promotional post after his retirement?
19. It is a well settled principle that promotion
becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather
than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is
4
created. While the Courts have recognized the right to
be considered for promotion as not only a statutory
right but also a fundamental right, there is no
fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this
regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of
this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity
Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC
Online SC 1768, wherein it was observed as follows:-
"18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is
effective from the date it is granted and not from
the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject
post or when the post itself is created. No doubt,
a right to be considered for promotion has been
treated by courts not just as a statutory right but
as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is
no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this
context, we may profitably cite a recent decision
in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12
SCC 579 where, citing earlier precedents in
Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v.
Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 and
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC
209, a three-Judge Bench observed thus:
41. This Court, time and again, has laid
emphasis on right to be considered for
promotion to be a fundamental right, as was
held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift
Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty
in para 4 of the report which is reproduced
below:
'4....... There is no fundamental right to
promotion, but an employee has only right
to be considered for promotion, when it
arises, in accordance with relevant rules.
From this perspective in our view the
conclusion of the High Court that the
gradation list prepared by the corporation is
in violation of the right of respondent-writ
petitioner to equality enshrined under Article
14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution,
and the respondent-writ petitioner was
unjustly denied of the same is obviously
unjustified.'
42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State
of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and
Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held
that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and
the criteria for promotion but still is not
considered for promotion, then there will be
5
clear violation of his/her's fundamental right.
Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and
Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik,
Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in
paras 22 and 27:
[['Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be
considered for promotion a fundamental right
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely
connected. They deal with individual rights of
the person. Article 14 demands that the 'State
shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws'.
Article 16(1) issues a positive command that:
'there shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State'.
It has been held repeatedly by this Court that
clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14
and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The
said clause particularises the generality in
Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional
sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of
employment and appointment to any office
under the State. The word "employment" being
wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its
fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above
the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article
16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise
eligible for promotion or who comes within the
zone of consideration, a fundamental right to
be "considered" for promotion. Equal
opportunity here means the right to be
"considered" for promotion. If a person
satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is
not considered for promotion, then there will
be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to
be "considered" for promotion, which is his
personal right. "Promotion" based on equal
opportunity and seniority attached to such
promotion are facets of fundamental right
under Article 16(1).
***
27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in
Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v.
State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201, and followed in
Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana,
(1997) 6 SCC 538, and other cases, if it is
6
intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to
employees for being “considered” for promotion
according to relevant rules of recruitment by
promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority
or merit) is only a statutory right and not a
fundamental right, we cannot accept the
proposition. We have already stated earlier that
the right to equal opportunity in the matter of
promotion in the sense of a right to be
“considered” for promotion is indeed a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1)
and this has never been doubted in any other
case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar
Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’
“20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra
Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, it was held that
retrospective seniority cannot be given to an
employee from a date when he was not even
borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given
with retrospective effect as that might adversely
affect others. The same view was reiterated in
Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India,
reported 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, where it was
held that when a quota is provided for, then the
seniority of the employee would be reckoned
from the date when the vacancy arises in the
quota and not from any anterior date of
promotion or subsequent date of confirmation.
The said view was restated in Uttaranchal
Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State
of U.P, (2006) 10 SCC 346, in the following
words:
’37. We are also of the view that no retrospective
promotion or seniority can be granted from a
date when an employee has not even been
borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the
direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime,
as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra
Joshi v. Union of India held that when
promotion is outside the quota, seniority would
be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within
the quota rendering the previous service
fortuitous. The previous promotion would be
regular only from the date of the vacancy within
the quota and seniority shall be counted from
that date and not from the date of his earlier
promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order
to do justice to the promotes, it would not be
proper to do injustice to the direct recruits……
7
38. This Court has consistently held that no
retrospective promotion can be granted nor can
any seniority be given on retrospective basis
from a date when an employee has not even
been borne in the cadre particularly when this
would adversely affect the direct recruits who
have been appointed validity in the meantime.”
(emphasis supplied)”
7. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Amal
Satpathi (supra), I do not find any good ground for interference.
8. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judgevatti
[ad_1]
Source link