Chattisgarh High Court
Chhote Lal Dahire vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 June, 2025
1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:26541
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5883 of 2017
1 - Chhote Lal Dahire S/o Late N. L. Dahire, Aged About 60 Years R/o Ayodhya
Nagar, Ring Road No. 2, P. O. Mangla, Tahsil And District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh. Occupation Assistant Engineer, At Present Posted As A. E. In P.
M. G. S. Y. Unit Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2 - Ramsanehi Rathore, S/o Late Hanuman Prasad Rathore, Aged About 59
Years R/o Village Mudahali, Via Hardibarzar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
Occupation- Assistant Engineer At Present Posted As Sub Divisional Officer In
Masturi Sub Division, Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And
Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2 - Development Commissioner, Vikas Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Development Commissioner
Office Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Amit Gulhare, Aged About 35 Years Working In The Office Of Chhattisgarh
Gramin Sadak Vikas, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Kamal Ram Sahu, Aged About 41 Years Working In The Office Of R. E. S.
Division, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
6 - Akhilesh Rathore, Aged About 40 Years Working In The Office Of
Chhattisgarh, Vikas Abhikaran, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
7 - Akhilesh Tiwari, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of R. E. S.
Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
-2-
Chhattisgarh
8 - Navin Kumar Mehta, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of
Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh
9 - Varun Kumar Rajput, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of Gramin
Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
10 - Vinay Gupta, Aged About 45 Years Working In The Office Of M. G. N. R. E.
G. A. Prakoshta, Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
11 - Balwant Singh Patel, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of
Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Abhikaran, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
12 - P. Mohan Rao Soni, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of
Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
13 - Ashok Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of
R. E. S. Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh
14 - Jitendra Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of
R. E. S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
15 - Sunil Namdeo, Aged About 35 Years Working In The Office Of R. E. S.
Division, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
16 - Ajay Kumar Ekka, Aged About 35 Years Working In The Office Of R. E. S.
Sub Division Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
17 - Manoj Kumar Ratre, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of
Gramin Vikas Abhikaran, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
18 - Smt. Anju Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of Gramin Sadak
Vikas Abhikaran, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
19 - Vinod Kumar Minj, Aged About 40 Years Working In The Office Of R. E. S.
Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
20 - Smt. Bhumija Gabel, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of
Gramin Sadak Vikash Abhikaran, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
3
21 - Rameshwar Singh Netam, Aged About 43 Years Working In The Office Of
R. E. S. Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh
22 - Dwarika Prasad, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of R. E. S.
Division, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
23 - Smt. Shana Sonal, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of Gramin
Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
24 - Ku. Reenal Mehta, Aged About 42 Years Working In The Office Of Gramin
Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
25 - Ku. Rashmi Meshram, Aged About 38 Years Working In The Office Of
Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
26 - Smt. Manju Bhagat, Aged About 42 Years Working In The Office Of
Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
27 - Ku. Pushpa Toppo, Aged About 42 Years Working In The Office Of R. E. S.
Development Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate
holding the brief of Shri R.S.
Baghel, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G.
For Respondents No.4,
6, 9, 10, 11, 22 & 23 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate
alongwith Ms. Apurva Nigam,
Advocate.
For Respondents No.5, 13,
15, 17, 18, 20, 24 & 26 : Shri N. Naha Roy, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
20.06.2025
1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:
"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the
-4-
records from the respective offices of the respondents.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-
aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2017 bearing no.
4328/1069/ Stha./22/ Vi.-3/ Gra.ya.Sewa/2012 (Annexure
P/1) passed by respondent no. 1.
10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to consider the claim of petitioners for
promotion after excluding the respondent No. 4 to 27 by
issuance of writ of mandamus, direction directions(s).
order/order(s).
10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
10.5 Cost of the petition."
2. The petitioners have claimed promotion from the post of Assistant
engineer to the post of Executive Engineer. Admittedly, the age of
the petitioners were 59 & 60 years in the year 2017 and have
since retired from service.
3. In the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal
Satpathi & Ors., reported in 2024 (14) SCALE 294, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held, in paragraphs 15 & 19, 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?
5
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
Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is
reproduced below:
'4....... There is no fundamental right to
-6-
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
7
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 intended to lay down that the
right guaranteed to employees for being
-8-
“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
9cadre 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)”
4. Taking into consideration the fact that no notional benefits can be
extended where promotion is claimed after retirement, no case is
made out for interference. Thus, the petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
[ad_1]
Source link