[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
K. N. Dewangan vs The Registrar General on 9 June, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 14
2023:CGHC:30900
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2839 of 2017
Reserved On : 11.03.2025
Pronounced On : 09.06.2025
K. N. Dewangan S/o Shri Tejuram Dewangan, Aged About 60 Years,
Occupation Assistant Grade Il In District Court Dhamtari Civil and
Revenue District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
....Petitioner
versus
1 - The Registrar General, High Court of C.G. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The District and Sessions Judge, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
....Respondents
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Dubey and Mr. Himanshu Kumar
Sharma, Advocates
Respondent No. 1: Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
For State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General
________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated
09.11.2015 passed by respondent No. 1 by which the
respondents have denied granting benefit of upgraded pay scale
under the implementation of Shetty Pay Commission for the post
of Reader Grade-I from the date of appointment on the post of
Assistant Grade-II on the count that he has been inflicted with
penalty of withholding of three annual increments without
cumulative effect and simultaneously denied promotion to the
Page 2 of 14
post of Reader Grade-I on the count that one departmental
enquiry is also pending against him.
2. The facts projected by the petitioner are that
(A) The petitioner is a retired employee from the
establishment of District & Sessions Judge, Dhamtari. He
retired on 31.03.2018 from the post of Reader Grade-II. It has
been contended that this Court vide memo dated 23.7.2015
forwarded the guidelines related to implementation of
recommendation of Shetty Pay Commission to all the District
& Sessions Judges of the District Courts for its employees. In
compliance of the memo dated 23.7.2015 the office of
respondent No. 2 started the proceedings and vide order
dated 9.11.2015 the benefit of upgraded pay scale has been
given to the persons junior to the petitioner by
upgrading/promoting them to the Post of Reader Grade-I,
however, the said benefit has been denied to the petitioner on
the count that as per annual confidential report for the year
2008 of the petitioner, he has not been found fit for promotion
as the reporting authority has graded him very poor
confidential report. It has further been contended that apart
from imposition of penalties of withholding of annual
increment with non-cumulative effect on three occasions, a
departmental enquiry is also pending against the petitioner,
therefore, he is not fit for promotion to the post of Reader
Grade-II.
Page 3 of 14
(B) On coming to know about the passing of the order dated
09.11.2015, the petitioner enquired into the matter and found
that he has been denied promotion/up-gradation to the post of
Reader Grade-II by taking into consideration the annual
confidential report of the year 2008. Immediately thereafter
the petitioner has made a representation to the Registrar
General of the this Court on 01.03.2016 contending that the
promotion has been taken place in 2015, therefore, ACR of
the previous 5 years of ACR should be taken into
consideration i.e. ACR for the year 2010 to 2014 can be
considered in no case ACR of 2008 can be taken into
consideration. Hence this petition has been filed for grant of
upgradation in the pay scale and promotion as detailed
above.
3. Respondent No. 2 has filed its return mainly contending that :-
(A) The petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated
09.11.2015 and have also annexed the DPC proceedings of
the Administrative Committee, but the petitioner has not
assailed the said proceedings of the Committee or the
findings of the said Committee. The petitioner has not
assailed the evaluation of the service record as has been
done by the Committee, therefore, in absence of any
challenge to the proceedings of the Committee, the challenge
to the order dated 09.11.2015 which is a consequential order
implementing the recommendation made by the Committee
after evaluation of the service record of the petitioner cannot
Page 4 of 14be interfered.
(B) It has been further contended that evaluation of service
record as has been done by the Committee cannot be
substituted by the wisdom of the petitioner. It is well known
that a Selection Board while considering the suitability of an
officer for promotion to a higher post or rank, takes into
consideration several factors and it is not solely based on the
Appraisal Report of the controlling officer. This Court shall not
sit in appeal over the consideration recorded by the
Committee. There is no allegation of any oblique motive
against the members of the Committee and therefore there is
no reason for interfering with the assessment made by the
said Committee. The assessment made by the Committee is
based on objective consideration of the available material and
the same is not vitiated on account of any perversity.
(C) It has been further contended that vide order dated
20.07.2015 the pay of the petitioner was upgraded from
Assistant Grade-II to Reader Grade-II and the said benefit
was given from 01.11.2005 to 07.10.2006, and thereafter vide
order dated 22.12.2015, the pay of the petitioner was revised.
The petitioner was an employee of the District Establishment
Raipur from 01.04.2003 to 07 10.2006, and thereafter with the
formation of the District Establishment Dhamtari, from
08.10.2006, the consideration for promotion was to be
considered by the latter. As on 08. 10.2006, there was only 1
post of Reader Grade-I in the court of Additional District &
Page 5 of 14
Session Court Dhamtari. The said post was held by one Shri
K. S. Dhruw. The said post of Reader Grade-I became vacant
after the retirement of Shri K. S. Dhruw on 01.07.2012 It was
thereafter that 2 posts of Reader Grade-I were sanctioned in
Additional District & Sessions Court (FTC) and District &
Sessions Court Dhamtari on 17 10.2013 and 16.06.2014,
respectively. The name of the petitioner was duly considered
for the said vacancies. The proceedings of the said
Administrative Committee clearly demonstrate that the claim
of the petitioner was duly examined and considered by the
said Committee in a most objective manner. Since the
petitioner was already sanctioned the upgraded pay scale of
Reader Grade-II, therefore his candidature was being
considered for promotion to the post of Reader Grade-I in the
said proceedings. The Committee applied the criterion for
promotion as ‘seniority-cum-suitability and considered the
service record of the candidates for the previous 5 years. The
Committee after examination of the service record found that
vide order dated 21.03.2012 passed against the petitioner in
a departmental enquiry, he was imposed with a punishment
for withholding of 2 annual increments with cumulative effect.
Furthermore, vide order dated 12.12.2014 the petitioner was
also imposed with a punishment for withholding of one annual
increment with non-cumulative effect. In yet another
departmental enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with a
punishment of withholding of one annual increment with non-
Page 6 of 14
cumulative effect vide order dated 14.07.2015. In addition to
the above orders of punishment, a departmental enquiry was
also pending against the petitioner on the said date when the
Committee was considering the candidature of the petitioner.
It was on account of the said facts that the Committee found
the petitioner to be unfit for grant of promotion.
(D) The petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate any
illegality in the proceedings conducted by the Committee,
notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has not assailed
the said proceedings in the instant writ petition. The orders of
punishment upon the petitioner have attained finality and
therefore the petitioner was found unfit by the said Committee
and he was denied promotion to the post of Reader Grade-I
on 05.11.2015. The petitioner retired in the year 2018 and
from 2016 to 2018 there was no vacancy of Reader Grade-I,
As such, stood retired from the post of Reader Grade-II.
Therefore, would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. This Court vide its order dated 21.03.2024 directed respondent
No. 1 to clarify whether after completion of enquiry, the case of
the petitioner has been considered or not and also clarify the
contentions raised by the petitioner that the respondents have
considered ACR of employees of one year while considering the
case of promotion. Respondent No. 1 in compliance of direction
issued by this Court has filed additional affidavit mainly
contending that the enquiry was concluded vide order dated
01.03.2016 wherein he was inflicted with the penalty of censure.
Page 7 of 14
It has been further clarified that no discrimination was done with
the petitioner as his case was considered in the DPC held on
05.11.2015 along with other candidates. In the said DPC, one
Shri Nageshwar Singh Mourya and Yogendra Prasad Sahu were
considered against the two posts of unreserved category, they
were found fit and accordingly, promoted. It has been further
clarified that the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2018 still no
post of Reader Grade-I for unreserved category was available.
As such, he stood retired from the post of Assistant Grade-II. It
has been specifically denied that only one year ACR was
considered by the respondents in fact, five years ACR of the
employees who have been considered for promotion has been
taken into consideration.
5. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the punishment order has not been issued,
therefore, this Court on 29.04.2024 directed respondent No. 2 to
file affidavit whether punishment for the year 2013-14, 2014-15,
2015-16 & 2016-17 have been communicated to the petitioner or
not and they were directed to clarify whether case of the
petitioner for time bound pay scale has been considered or not
as according to them no vacant post was available.
6. This Court on 14.10.2024 has also directed respondent No. 2 to
clarify whether punishment imposed upon the petitioner bars
grant of third time bound pay scale or not. During proceedings, it
has been submitted by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was
appointed on 07.03.1981 and he was promoted on 17.05.1982
Page 8 of 14
and thereafter he has been granted promotion twice, as such, he
is not entitled to get third time bound pay scale, therefore, this
Court has directed the respondents to place on record the rules
governing the fields.
7. In pursuance of direction issued by this Court to understand the
real controversy exits between the parties, respondent No. 2 has
filed additional affidavit on 22.07.2024 and have contending that
the punishment order dated 16.03.2012, 12.12.2014,
14.07.2015, 01.03.2016 & 07.12.2017 were duly communicated
to the petitioner as evident from the dispatch register filed by
them. The petitioner has never challenged the same, as such it
has been attained finality. It has also been stated by respondent
No.2 vide additional affidavit dated 18.11.2024 filed by them that
the petitioner was appointed on 07.03.1981 and as per Circular
dated 30.09.1983 issued by State Government the Kramonnati
is payable to the employees on completion of 12 & 20 years of
service, therefore, first Kramonnati is payable to the petitioner on
07.03.1993 but intervening this period, the petitioner was
promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 17.05.1982, as
such he is not entitled for grant of first Kramonnati. The second
Kramonnati can be granted to the petitioner after completion of
20 years of service on 07.03.2001 but intervening this period, he
was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (Assistant Grade-II) on
30.07.1997, therefore, he is not entitled to grant second
Kramonnati. The Circular dated 30.09.1983 has been
superseded by the Circular dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure-E)
Page 9 of 14
issued by the State Government which provides time bound pay
scale after completion of 10 & 20 years of service in place of 12
& 20 years of service. In both the circulars, the mandatory
condition for getting Kramonnati or time bound pay scale is that
the candidate should be eligible and found fit for promotion but
because of want of posts, he cannot be promoted. It has been
further clarified that the State Government vide Circular dated
08.08.2018 (Annexure-D) introduced the grant of third time
bound pay scale which will be accrued to the Government
servants after completion of 10 years from the date the second
time pay scale due on 07.08.2027. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner stood retired on 31.03.2018, therefore, he is not
entitled to get any relief and it has been prayed for dismissal of
the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the submission
already made in the petition would pray for allowing the writ
petition.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1
reiterating the submission made in the return and the affidavit
filed on 18.04.2024, 22.07.2024 & 18.11.2024 would submit that
the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and the order dated
11.03.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the
representation of the petitioner, is also legal, justified and does
not warrant any interference by this Court.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
Page 10 of 14
record with utmost satisfaction.
11. From the submissions made by the parties the point emerged for
determination of this Court is :-
“Whether denial of pay scale of Reader Grade-I vide order
dated 09.11.2015 and denial of second time bound pay
scale to the petitioner on the count that the petitioner has
already been promoted twice first on 17.05.1982 as Lower
Division Clerk and secondly on 30.07.1997 as Upper
Division Clerk (Assistant Grade-II) and due to imposition of
minor penalty of censure on 03.08.2017 and imposition of
withholding of one increment without cumulative effect on
31.12.2017, are legal and justified?”
Discussion and finding on the Point
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of pay scale of
Assistant Grade-I though he was senior to the other
respondents still he has been denied without any rhyme and
reason. This was opposed by the learned counsel for respondent
No. 1 and would submit that as per the guideline issued by the
High Court on 23.07.2015 while considering case for promotion
from the post Class-III to Class-III, the criteria is seniority-cum-
merit and five years ACRs have be to considered. Respondent
No. 2 has considered service record of the petitioner. Wherein it
has been found that at the time of employment at District Court
Raipur establishment, the petitioner has already been granted
Page 11 of 14
upgraded pay scale of Assistant Grade-II and in the year 2008,
he was found unfit for promotion due to very poor ACR. He was
inflicted with the various punishment and enquiry was also
pending against him. The petition has unable to refute the said
material considered by respondent No. 1, as such it cannot be
held that the decision making process adopted by respondent
No. 1 suffers from perversity or illegality which warrants any
interference by this Court.
13. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that
even if he was not considered for promotion from the post of
Assistant Grade-I to Assistant Grade-I, he is entitled to get time
bound pay scale. This submission was objected by learned
counsel for respondent No. 2 by submitting that the petitioner
appointed on 07.03.1981 and he has been promoted on
17.05.1982 as Lower Division Clerk and later on he has been
promoted on 07.07.1997 as Upper Division Clerk (Assistant
Grade-II) whereas after completion of 20 years of service, he is
entitled to get second time bound pay scale on 07.03.2001.
Since he has already been promoted twice, therefore, he is not
entitled to claim time bound pay scale.
14. From the service records, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was
promoted as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1997 whereas his
case can be considered for grant of second Kramonnati as per
the Circular dated 30.09.1983 on 07.03.2001 before that he has
been granted promotion, as such he cannot be granted time
bound pay scale/Kramonnati. The said circular has been
Page 12 of 14
supersede on 28.04.2008 and it provides time bound pay scale
after completion of 10 years. Accordingly, the petitioner was
granted time bound pay scale on 07.08.2007 which has been
granted on 20.02.2013 w.e.f. 07.08.2007. According to the
Circular, the petitioner is entitled to get second time bound pay
scale on 07.08.2017 before that he was served with minor
penalty of censure on 03.08.2017, thereafter another
punishment was imposed on 07.12.2017 according to the
respondent, it has disqualified the petitioner to get second time
bound pay scale. This submission deserves to be rejected as the
punishment of censure imposed upon the petitioner on
03.08.2017 cannot be debarred the petitioner for entitlement of
second time bound pay scale but it can differ for the period till
existence of minor punishment of censure. Even otherwise, the
subsequent imposition of punishment on 07.12.2017 withholding
of one increment w.e.f. July, 2017, will not have any adverse
effect upon the petitioner to get second time bound pay scale
after differ period as service record of the petitioner has to be
considered for the period which are essential for promotion.
Even otherwise when the order was passed on 07.12.2017, the
increment would have definitely added in the pay scale of the
petitioner, as such also it can have prospective effect from
31.12.2017 only. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Union of
India & others Vs. A.N. Mohanan [(2007) 5 SCC 425] has
considered the effect of imposition of minor penalty of censure
while considering the case for promotion of a Government
Page 13 of 14
servant and has held in paragraphs 11 & 12 as under:-
“11. Awarding of censure, therefore, is a blameworthy
factor. A bare reading of Para 3.1 as noted above makes
the position clear that where any penalty has been imposed
the findings of the sealed cover are not to be acted upon
and the case for promotion may be considered by the next
DPC in the normal course.
12. Having regard to the penalty imposed on him,
undisputedly the respondent has been given promotion
with effect from 26-11-2001. His claim for promotion with
effect from 1-11-1999 was clearly unacceptable and,
therefore, the CAT and the High Court were not justified in
holding that he was entitled to be promoted with effect from
1-11-1999. The order of the High Court affirming the view
taken by the CAT cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set
aside.”
15. From the abovestated legal position and considering Rule 10 of
the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, the ‘censure’ is a minor penalty and the minor penalty will
loss its significance on the next year. Even the Circular dated
08.04.2008 does not provide that if minor penalty is imposed
then the Government Servant is not entitled to get the time
bound pay scale. The only rider which will come in the way of a
Government servant who has suffered with minor penalty that
grant of time bound pay scale will be differed till the existence of
minor penalty. The petitioner has been suffered with minor
penalty of ‘censure’ which will loss its significance immediately
after one year i.e. 03.08.2018. Even after retirement on
31.03.2018, the case of the petitioner has to be considered for
second time bound pay scale as ‘censure’ can be considered
when evaluating a person overall service record and suitability
for promotion or time bound pay scale which is continuous cause
Page 14 of 14
of action as it also affects pension after retirement.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not
specifically prayed for grant of second time bound pay scale but
since the petitioner has retired on 31.03.2018 and more than six
years have already been lapsed, this Court can very well mould
the relief of the petitioner for grant of promotion on the post of
Assistant Grade-I as to grant of second time bound pay scale.
17. Thus, the denial of second time bound pay scale to the petitioner
is against the law and direction is issued to respondent No. 2 to
consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of second
time bound pay scale taking into consideration that imposition of
penalty of ‘censure’ is not rider for promotion or for grant of time
bound pay scale but it can differ the same for grant of time
bound pay scale. The exercise to re-examine the case of the
petitioner for grant of second time bound pay scale shall be
considered by respondent No. 2 within two months from today
afresh ignoring the punishment of censure imposed upon the
petitioner after 03.08.2018 on the basis of records available with
them including ACRs for last five years.
18. Accordingly, the Point determined by this Court is answered
partly in favour of the petitioner and partly against the
petitioner.
19. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed.
Digitally
signed by
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
KISHORE
KISHORE KUMAR
KUMAR DESHMUKH
DESHMUKH Date:
Judge
2025.06.09
17:21:41
+0530
Deshmukh
[ad_2]
Source link