Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Padma Godavarthi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 July, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1485 of 2017
1 - Smt. Padma Godavarthi W/o Shri G. V. S. Prakash Rao, Aged
About 55 Years At Present Working As Account Officer, Under The
Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Limited, Hitwad Parisar,
Awanti Vihar Telibandha, Head Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And
Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Through Its
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Hitwad Parisar, Awanti Vihar Telibandha, Head Office Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
Along with
WPS No. 4767 of 2017
1 - Smt. Padma Godavarthi W/o Shri G.V.S. Prakash Rao, Aged About
55 Years Working As Accounts Officer, At Chhatttisgarh Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited, Hitavad Parisar, Awanti Vihar, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Naya Raipur., Chhattisgarh
2 - The Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipur,
Through Its Managing Director, Hitavad Parisar, Avanti Vihar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
-2-
For Petitioner : Smt. Padma Godavarthi, Petitioner in Person
For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional A.G.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
31.07.2025
WPS No.1485 of 2017
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following
relief(s):-
"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire records pertaining to the
promotion case of petitioner for its kind perusal.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash/set-aside the order impugned dated
06.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) issued by the
respondent No. 2.
10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set-aside the order dated 16.05.2008
(Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent No.1.
10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities,
particularly the respondent no. 2 to continued
the service of the petitioner to the post of Senior
Accounts Officer with all consequential benefits.
10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct to the respondent no. 1 to
consider the letter dated 23.07.2010 and
05.11.2011 (Annexure P-10) made by the
respondent no. 2 with regard to promotion from
the feeder cadre.
10.6 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief, as if may
deem fit and appropriate.
10.7 Cost of the petition may also be given."
2. The facts of the present case are that initially, the petitioner was
appointed to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in the year
1989. She was promoted to the post of Deputy Accounts Officer
3
in the year 1995, and further, she was granted promotion to the
post of Accounts Officer in the year 2005. The services of the
petitioner were governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services
(Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules of 1961').
It is also pleaded that Rule 14 of the said Rules states that there
would be a Selection Committee consisting of members as
specified in Column 4 of Schedule III for making a preliminary
selection for promotion of eligible candidates.
3. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1961 says that the Selection Committee
would consider the cases of all persons who on the 1st day of
January of that year had completed the prescribed years of
service (as specified in column (2) of Schedule III) and column (i)
of Schedule III for promotion.
4. Rule 16(i) of the Rules of 1961 deals with the preparation of a list
of suitable officers for promotion.
5. The petitioner further pleaded that respondent No.2 constituted a
Committee for the grant of promotion to the post of Senior
Accounts Officer on 06.05.2013, and the petitioner was found fit
for promotion. It is next pleaded that a specific order was issued
on 06.05.2013 itself whereby the petitioner was promoted to the
post of Senior Accounts Officer. One Mr. V.K. Das made a
complaint against the petitioner, and a meeting was held on
19.05.2016. Vide order dated 06.09.2016, the order of promotion
to the post of Senior Accounts Officer issued in favour of the
petitioner was canceled, and she was reverted to the post of
Accounts Officer.
-4-
6. It is also pleaded that vide order dated 09.05.2005, respondent
No.1 sanctioned the set-up and there was one post of Senior
Accounts Officer, but the said order was amended by the State
Government by incorporating that the post of Senior Accounts
Officer would be filled by the cadre of State Financial Service.
7. Respondent No.2 preferred a letter dated 14.12.2007 to the State
Government for filling up the post of Senior Accounts Officer and
the Accounts Officer from the cadre of the parent department,
and the said letter was rejected by respondent No.1 vide order
dated 16.05.2008.
8. It is also pleaded that respondent No.2 convened a meeting on
25.06.2010 and took a decision that the appointment of officers
according to the set-up was necessary for the smooth functioning
of the Institution.
9. Thus, in WPS No.1485 of 2017, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 06.09.2016, whereby the order of promotion of the
petitioner to the post of Senior Accounts Officer was canceled.
Further, the order dated 16.05.2008 has been challenged,
whereby respondent No.1 rejected the letter sent by respondent
No.2 dated 14.12.2007 to fill up the post of Senior Accounts
Officer and the Accounts Officer from the parent department.
WPS No.4767 of 2017
10.The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following
relief(s):-
"a.This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction
to the respondents authorities for quashing the
5
impugned order, dt. 27/06/2017 Annexure - P/1.
b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow
any other relief and consequential benefits of
services etc.
c. Cost of Petition may kindly be allowed."
11.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.06.2017 issued
by respondent No.2, whereby the post of Senior Accounts Officer
was abolished and nomenclature was changed to the post of
Finance Controller, and it was to be filled only by way of
deputation from the State Finance Cadre.
12.It is stated that according to the provisions of Section 69 of the
Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act of
2000'), the constitution in relation to determination of the
conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the
officers or any State; provided that the conditions of service
applicable immediately before the appointed day in the case of
any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of
Madhya Pradesh or State of Chhattisgarh under Section 68 shall
not be varied to his or her disadvantage except with the previous
approval of the Central Government. It is also stated that the
services of the petitioner were handed over to the Chhattisgarh
State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipur, in accordance
with the provisions of the Act of 2000; therefore, the reversion of
the petitioner's service to the post of Accounts Officer was bad in
law.
13.The petitioner in person would argue that the order dated
06.09.2016 passed by respondent No.2 is arbitrary, illegal and
contrary to law. She would further argue that the petitioner was
-6-
possessing the requisite qualification for the post of Senior
Accounts Officer, and her name was duly recommended by the
department. She would contend that once the order of promotion
was executed and the petitioner resumed the charge, the order
could not have been cancelled by respondent No.2 after a lapse
of three years. She would further contend that on the complaint
of one Mr. V.K. Das, an action was taken against her and without
affording any opportunity of hearing, the order impugned was
passed.
14.With regard to WPS No.4767 of 2017, the petitioner would
submit that the post of Senior Accounts Officer has been
abolished contrary to the provisions of Section 69 of the Act of
2000. She would pray to allow both petitions.
15.On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the
respondents would oppose the submissions. Mr. Tiwari, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2, would argue that the
petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer and
thereafter, vide order dated 06.05.2013, she was granted ad-hoc
promotion to the post of Senior Accounts Officer till further
orders. He would contend that, according to the Circular issued
by the State, the post of Senior Accounts Officers was to be filled
by deputation only by an employee belonging to the State
Financial Service Cadre. He would contend that with regard to
the promotion granted to the petitioner to the post of Senior
Accounts Officer, an enquiry was conducted by a committee and
according to the report of the Committee, ad-hoc promotion
7
granted to the petitioner was not confirmed, thus was canceled
and vide order dated 06.09.2016, the petitioner was reverted to
the post of Accounts Officer.
16.Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State, would contend that the post of Senior
Accounts Officer was to be filled by a Cadre of the State Finance
Service and a decision in this regard was taken by the State
Government vide order dated 16.05.2008. He would contend that
the set up of the State Food Civil Supplies Corporation was
sanctioned vide order dated 09.05.2005 and as per the set up,
there were two posts of Accounts Officer and one post of Senior
Accounts Officer but it was amended by the State vide order
dated 16.03.2006 and a decision was taken to fill up the post of
Accounts Officer and Senior Accounts Officer of the Corporation
from the employees belonging to the State Financial Service
Cadre. He would contend that a request made by respondent
No.2 seeking permission to fill up the posts of Accounts Officer
and Senior Accounts Officer from the department was rejected by
respondent No.1 vide order dated 16.05.2008. He would further
contend that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Senior Accounts Officer vide order dated 06.05.2013 on an Ad-
hoc basis, the mistake was rectified later on as the petitioner was
not an employee belonging to the State Financial Service Cadre.
It is also contended that in the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 (for
short 'the Rules of 2005'), in the set-up, there is no post of Senior
-8-
Accounts Officer and Accounts Officer, and both columns have
been left blank; therefore, the petitioner has no case.
17.With regard to WPS No.4767 of 2017, they would contend that
the State of Chhattisgarh issued a rectification order dated
16.03.2006, wherein it was stated that the post mentioned in the
order dated 09.05.2005 at Serial Nos. 4 & 6 of the Senior
Accounts Officer and the Accounts Officer would be filled up by
the State Financial Service cadre only and thus, the circular
dated 09.05.2005 was modified. They would also contend that
vide order dated 27.06.2017, issued by respondent No.2, the
post of Senior Accounts Officer was abolished and its
nomenclature was changed to the post of Finance Controller, and
it was to be filled up by way of deputation from the State Finance
Cadre. They would argue that the provisions of Section 69 of the
Act of 2000 would not apply. They would also submit that both
petitions deserve to be dismissed.
18.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents placed on the record.
19.Section 69 of the Act of 2000 states "the constitution in relation to
the determination of the conditions of service of persons serving
in connection with the officers or any State; provided that the
conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed
day in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to
the State of Madhya Pradesh or State of Chhattisgarh under
Section 68 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with
the previous approval of the Central Government.
9
20.In the present case, the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Accounts Officer on deputation in the year 2005, whereas her
services were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh in the year
2001. According to Section 69 of the Act of 2000, the status and
service conditions cannot be varied to the disadvantage of a
Government servant except with the previous approval of the
Central Government. In the year 2001, when the services of the
petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, she was
holding the post of Deputy Accounts Officer and her status or
conditions of service were not changed. She was promoted to
the post of Accounts Officer on deputation in the year 2005.
Thus, in my opinion, the provision of Section 69 of the Act of
2000 would not apply in the present case, and the contention
raised by the petitioner in this regard appears to be
misconceived.
21.In WPS No.1485 of 2017, the petitioner was promoted to the
post of Senior Accounts Officer vide order dated 06.05.2013 on
an ad-hoc basis.
22.A perusal of the Rules of 2005 would make it clear that there was
no sanctioned post of Senior Accounts Officer or Accounts Officer
in the department. An amended notification was issued on
16.03.2006, wherein a decision was taken to fill up the posts of
Senior Accounts Officer and Accounts Officer from the cadre of
the State Finance Department.
23.A complaint was made against the promotion granted to the
petitioner, and an inquiry was conducted. The order of promotion
-10-
was found contrary to the notification issued by the State
Government dated 16.03.2006; therefore, the promotion order
was cancelled. Further, a recommendation was made by the
department to fill up the post of Senior Accounts Officer from the
officers of the department, but respondent No.1 rejected it vide
order dated 16.05.2008. The petitioner has challenged the order
dated 16.5.2008 after a lapse of 09 years without explaining the
delay.
24.With regard to WPS No.4767 of 2017, respondent No.2 has
taken a decision to change the nomenclature from the post of
Senior Accounts Officer to the Finance Controller, and such a
decision would not affect the rights or service conditions of the
petitioner in any manner.
25.The petitioner has already retired from services, and she has
claimed cancellation of the order dated 06.09.2016, whereby her
promotion order was cancelled, and further, the decision taken by
the State Government dated 16.05.2008.
26.In the entire petition, the petitioner has not pleaded the fact that
due to the cancellation of the order of promotion, she had
suffered monetary loss. Undisputedly, the post of Senior
Accounts Officer was to be filled on deputation from the cadre of
the finance department, whereas the petitioner was an employee
of the Civil Supplies Corporation. Therefore, no case is made out
for interference.
27.In the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr.
Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 (14) SCALE 294, the Hon'ble
11
Supreme Court has categorically held that the claim of the
Government Servant with regard to promotion cannot be
considered after retirement, 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 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
-12-
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 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).
13
***
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) 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
-14-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)”
28. 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), in my opinion, no case is made out for
interference.
29. Accordingly, both petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No
cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
[ad_1]
Source link