Chattisgarh High Court
Pramod Kumar Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 June, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
2025:CGHC:28306
Date: 2025.07.01
15:31:31 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1967 of 2017
1 - M.P. Shrivash S/o Late Shri R. D. Shrivash, Aged About 57 Years Senior
Cooperative Inspector, Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Baloda Bazar,
District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co-
Operative, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Registrar, Cooperative Society Of Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
And
WPS No. 7509 of 2018
1 - Ramlakhan Singh S/o Late Ramehswar Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o
M.P. Govt. Employees, Cooperative Society, Uslapur, Bilaspur, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co -
Operative, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Registrar Cooperative Society Of Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
And
WPS No. 29 of 2019
1 - Pramod Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Shri Vinod Bihari Shrivastava Aged
About 60 Years Working As Audit Officer, Office Of Sub Registrar, Co-
Operative Society Raipur, Vivekanand Complex, Pensionbada, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh, R/o Beside School Saraswati Gyan Mandir,
Polsay Para, Shyam Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co-
Operative, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2
2 - Registrar Cooperative Society Of Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla,
Deputy Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
26/06/2025
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in this batch of
writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard together, and finally
decided by this common order.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners have claimed promotion to the post of
Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Seniority with all
consequential benefits.
3. The facts of the case in WPS No. 1967/2017 are that initially the
petitioner- M.P. Shrivash was appointed to the post of Deputy Auditor
on 18.03.1980. He was promoted to the post of Cooperative Inspector
on 14.09.1987. The final seniority list of the Cooperative Inspectors
was published on 26.09.2015 with effect from 01.04.2014. The
petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Cooperative Inspector
on 28.06.2012. The seniority list for Senior Cooperative Inspectors
was published on 21.08.2015 with effect from 01.04.2014, whereas
the seniority list for the post of Audit Officer was published on
27.11.2014 with effect from 01.04.2014. In the matter of R.B. Rai &
Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in W.P. No. 1942/2011
by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh it was held that the employees
of the reserved and unreserved categories would be entitled to get the
promotion according to their seniority and fitness. The petitioner made
3
a representation on 26.11.2016 making a request to consider his name
for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar on the ground that his
juniors namely- Ramdayal Kulhada, Sher Singh Kashyap, Dilip Singh
Dhurv and Kanhaiya Lal Uike have already been promoted. The
representation so made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent
No. 1 vide order dated 22.02.2017. This petition was filed by the
petitioner on 06.04.2017 at the age of 57 years. The petitioner has
made a prayer to consider his claim for promotion with all
consequential benefits.
4. The facts of the case in WPS No. 7509/2018 and WPS No. 29/2019
are that at the relevant time in the year 2018, the petitioner-
Ramlakhan Singh (WPS No. 7509/2018) was working in the post of
Senior Cooperative Inspector in the Office of Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur and his name was at Serial No. 83 in
the gradation list. Petitioner- Pramod Kumar Shrivastava (WPS No.
29/2019) was holding the post of Audit Officer in the Office of Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur at the relevant time in the
year 2018.
It is further pleaded that the Cooperative Department failed to
follow the ratio between Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other
Backward Classes for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar. It is
also pleaded that out of 46 vacancies, 23 candidates ought to have
been promoted as per the seniority list dated 01.04.2017. It is also
pleaded that out of 23 posts, only 04 only four candidates of the
General category were considered. It is pleaded that there was more
than 50% reservation for members of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Tribe and Other Backward Classes. It is also pleaded that
4
representations were moved and the same was rejected vide order
dated 22.02.2017. These petitions were filed on 23.10.2018 and
02.01.2019 and at that time, the age of the petitioner - Ramlakhan was
61 years and of the petitioner- Pramod Kumar Shrivastava was 60
years. The petitioners have made a prayer to consider their claim for
promotion with all consequential benefits.
5. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
would fairly submit that the petitioners have already got retired from
services during the pendency of these petitions. He would further
submit that the seniority list of Senior Cooperative Inspectors
published on 21.08.2015 was erroneous as sufficient numbers of
Senior Cooperative Inspectors were not included in that list and after
the retirement of 03 Officers of the General category, no Officer was
available for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar. He would
also submit that the respondents have wrongly issued the promotion
order in favour of Ramdayal Kulhada, Sher Singh Kashyap, Dilip Singh
Dhurv and Kanhaiya Lal Uike, who joined services much after the
petitioners and thus, the action on the part of the respondents is
discriminatory. It is also argued that respondent No. 1 rejected the
representations of the petitioners in a cryptic manner vide order dated
22.02.2017. He would further contend that the respondents failed to
follow the reservation rules and permissible representation was not
provided to the members of that category. He would also contend that
in the matter of promotion, the respondents were under an obligation
to provide 50% reservation to the members of the General category,
whereas out of 23 available vacancies, only 04 posts were provided to
the members of the General category. It is also argued that the
5
representation of the petitioners were rejected by respondent No. 1
vide order dated 22.02.2017 without dealing with the grounds raised
by the petitioners. He would pray to allow these petitions.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents/State would submit that the
petitioners have not challenged the orders whereby their
representations were rejected. She would further submit that
respondent No. 1 considered the representations and rejected all the
representations vide order dated 22.02.2017. She would also submit
that the petitioners have already got retired from the services and
notional benefits of promotion cannot be extended to the petitioners
with retrospective effect. She has placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government
of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 (14)
SCALE 294.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on the records of these petitions.
8. In these petitions, the petitioners have sought a direction to the
respondents to consider their names for promotion before retirement.
The petitioner M.P. Shrivash was due to retire in the month of
December 2017, the date of retirement of the petitioner- Ramlakhan
Singh was 30.09.2019 and the year of retirement of the petitioner-
Pramod Kumar Shrivastava was 2019 itself.
9. The petitioners made representations before respondent No.1 claiming
therein promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar on the ground that
their juniors, namely Ramdayal Kulhada, Sher Singh Kashyap Dilip
Singh Dhurv and Kanhaiya Lal Uike were promoted to the said post.
6
The representations were rejected assigning a reason that the
Departmental Promotion Committee took a decision to recommend the
names of the eligible candidates for promotion strictly in accordance
with the law. In all 03 petitions, though the representations made by
the petitioners were rejected by respondent No.1 vide order dated
22.02.2017, but those orders have not been challenged by the
petitioners.
10. Admittedly, the petitioners have already retired from services. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra)
has categorically held that the claim of the Government Servant with
regards to promotion cannot be considered after retirement and
notional benefits cannot be extended with retrospective effect 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?
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
7
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 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
8opportunity” 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 “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
9Recruit) 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)”
11. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have not
challenged the orders whereby their representations were rejected and
further, they have already retired from services and also considering
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr.
Amal Satpathi (supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for
interference.
12. Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No
costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judgevatti