[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shailendra Kumar Meshram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
2025:CGHC:31098
Date: 2025.07.15
11:06:07 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2177 of 2018
• Shailendra Kumar Meshram S/o Babulal Meshram Aged About 61
Years Working As Senior Mandi Secretary And Posted At Chhattisgarh
Krishi Vipnan Board Raipur Division Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o Mamta
Nagar Street No. 6 Ward No 17 , Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing
( Mandi ) Board Beej Bhawan G E Road Telibandha Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : None, in two rounds
For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
07/07/2025
1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:-
10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs,
direction/directions, order/orders and to
quash the order dated 04-07-2017 (Annexure
P-8) passed by the Respondent No. 2 and
direct them to given promotional benefits to
the petitioner alongwith all the consequential
benefits including monetary benefits.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court further kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records of the
case of the petitioner for kind perusal.
10.3 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court
deems fit looking to the facts and
2
circumstances of the case, may also be
granted to the petitioner.
2) Facts of the present case are that initially, petitioner was appointed as
Secretary in Krishi Upaj Mandi. A meeting of Department Promotion
Committee was convened in the year 2005 and petitioner was not
considered for promotion to the post of Senior Secretary on the ground
that his ACRs of the years 1997-98, 1999-2000 and 2001-02 were not
available. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.12.2007, petitioner was found
suitable for promotion w.e.f. 24.02.2007. Again, in year 2011, name of
petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Senior
Secretary [Selection Grade] on the ground that he had not completed
mandatory five year service on the post of Senior Secretary.
Subsequently, in the year 2016, name of petitioner was not considered
for promotion on the ground that there is no vacant post available.
Petitioner preferred WPS No. 1112 of 2017 before this Court which was
disposed of vide order dated 07.03.2017, pursuant to which, petitioner
made a representation before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2
vide order dated 04.07.2017, rejected the claim of petitioner. Petitioner
got retired from services on 31.03.2018.
3) Learned counsel appearing for State submits that as the petitioner got
retired from service on 31.03.2018, his claim for promotion cannot be
considered according to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr.
Amal Satpathi & Ors.1.
4) I have heard learned State counsel and perused the documents placed
on the record.
1. 2024 LiveLaw SC 927
3
5) In the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has categorically held that the claim of an employee with regard to
retrospective promotion cannot be considered after retirement. The
relevant paragraphs 15 & 19 are 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
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
4
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 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
5
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 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)
6
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……
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)”
6) The petitioner has already retired from services and notional benefits
cannot be extended to the petitioner from a retrospective date as per
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr.
Amal Satpathi (supra).
7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, no
case is made out for interference.
8) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
vatti
[ad_2]
Source link