Lakhan Lal Sahu S/o Late Mayar Ram Sahu Aged About 56 Years Senior Mechanic v. 1 - The Chairman Cum Managing Director S E C L Seepat Road Bilaspur
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.21 17:05:18 +0530 2025:CGHC:33296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 566 of 2018 Lakhan Lal Sahu S/o Late Mayar Ram Sahu Aged About 56 Years Senior Mechanic S E C L Dipka Expansion Project District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The Chairman Cum Managing Director S E C L Seepat Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Dy. General Manager , S E C L Dipka Expansion Project Gevra Area, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Area Personnel Manager , S E C L Dipka Expansion Project Gevra Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 To call for the records of the case for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order dated 09.06.15 is bad in law. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and set aside the order dated 09.06.15 passed by the respondents. 10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the petitioner cannot be denied benefit of wages of the promotional post on the ground that he had not worked on the said post as the mistake was committed by the employer. 10.5 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to grant wages attached to the promotional post i.e. EP Fitter Group D from 01.06.96, EP Fitter Group C from 2 01.01.2000, EP Fitter Group C from 31.03.2002, EP Fitter Group B from 17.11.16 and senior mechanic Group A from 28.03.13 along with interest @ 18% per annum. 10.6 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner joined his services under the respondents as General Mazdoor Category-I pursuant to the order dated 06.10.1987. He was promoted to the post of General Mazdoor Category-II in the year 1990. He was further promoted to the post of EPGH Grade E vide order dated 14.02.1992. It is pleaded that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of EPGH Grade E in the year 1990, but he was promoted vide order dated 12.06.1999 with effect from 07.10.1990. It is also pleaded that after completion of 04 years, the petitioner was entitled to promotion to the post of EP Fitter Grade-III Group D, and thereafter to the posts of Group C and Group B. It is also stated that the promotion in the Department is based on the seniority-cum-merit. The petitioner pleaded that he was entitled to promotion as EP Fitter Grade-III in the year 1994, EP Fitter Grade-II Group C in the year 1998, EP Fitter Grade-I Group B in the year 2002, and Senior Mechanic in the year 2006. The petitioner filed WP No. 1457/2006 seeking therein a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his name for promotion. This Court
Decision
vide order dated 12.02.2015 disposed of the petition with the direction to the respondents to take an appropriate decision granting promotion to the petitioner at par with his juniors within a period of 04 months. The petitioner made a representation pursuant to the order dated 12.02.2015 and vide order dated 09.06.2015, the petitioner was promoted to the post of EP Fitter Group D with effect from 01.06.1996; EP Fitter Group C with effect from 01.01.2000; EP Fitter Grade-I Group 3 C with effect from 31.03.2002; EP Fitter Group B with effect from 17.11.2016 and Senior Mechanic Group A with effect from 28.03.2013. In the said order, it was specifically stated that the order of promotion would be without monetary benefits. The petitioner, by filing this petition, has claimed wages attached to the promotional posts as a mistake was committed by the employer. 3. Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would argue that the petitioner was entitled to promotion to the post of EP Fitter Grade D on 01.06.1996; EP Fitter Grade C on 01.01.2000; EP Fitter Grade B on 17.11.2006 and Mechanic Grade-I in the year 2000, after completion of 04 years. He would contend that pursuant to a direction issued in WP No. 1457/2006, the petitioner was granted promotion vide order dated 09.06.2015. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shiv Nandan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 626, wherein it is held that the employee was kept out of service due to a mistake committed by the respondent State and therefore, such an employee cannot be denied the benefit of back wages on the ground that he had not worked for the period. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would oppose the contention made by Mr. Harshal Chouhan. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. It appears that the petitioner was granted 04 promotions from different dates vide order dated 09.06.2015. It was specifically stated in the order that the promotion would be without monetary benefits. 7. The petitioner accepted the order of promotion issued by the 4 respondent authorities without any objection. He filed this writ petition on 10.01.2018 and has challenged the order dated 09.06.2015, whereby he was granted four promotions. If the prayer made by the petitioner is allowed, the order of promotion granted in his favour would be canceled, and he would be restored to his earlier position of EPGH Grade E, and certainly such an order would affect the service conditions of the petitioner; therefore, the prayer made in relief clauses 10.2 and 10.3 is misconceived. 8. In prayer clauses 10.4 and 10.5, the petitioner has claimed monetary benefits attached to the promotional post from the date of promotion. The petitioner accepted the order of promotion dated 09.06.2015, and after 2 ½ years, claimed monetary benefits and in Para-7 of the writ petition, he has not explained the delay part properly. It is stated in Para-7 of the writ petition that the contempt petition was filed, which was disposed of on 02.09.2016 and thereafter for more than 01 year, he kept mum. 9. Shiv Nandan Mahto (supra) was a case where the employee was kept out of service due to a mistake of the department and was denied back wages; therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the prayer and directed the State to pay full back wages. The relevant paragraphs 8 and 9 are reproduced herein below:- “8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are constrained to observe that the High Court failed to examine the matter in detail in declining the relief to the appellant. In fact, a perusal of the aforesaid short order passed by the Division Bench would clearly show that the High Court had not even acquainted itself with the fact that the appellant was kept out of service due to a mistake. He was not kept out of service on account of suspension, as wrongly recorded by the High Court. The conclusion is, therefore, 5 obvious that the appellant could not have been denied the benefit of back wages on the ground that he had not worked for the period when he was illegally kept out of service. In our opinion, the appellant was entitled to be paid full back wages for the period he was kept out of service. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Division Bench is quashed and set aside. The appellant has already been reinstated in service. The respondents are, however, directed to pay to the appellant the entire full back wages from the period he was kept out of service till reinstatement. The full back wages shall be paid to the appellant with 9% interest. Let the amount be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 10. In the present case, initially, the petitioner was not granted promotion, and thereafter, he filed WP No. 1457/2006, which was disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to consider his claim for promotion. The respondents issued the order of promotion on 09.06.2015, and the petitioner accepted it without any objection. In the order of promotion, there was a specific clause that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages and thus, the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Therefore, the facts of the present case and the cited case are distinguishable. 11. It is a well settled principle of law that the petitioner has no absolute right to claim promotion. The promotion becomes effective upon assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. As the petitioner had not born in that cadre, particularly when his right accrued, the monetary benefits cannot be extended. 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. 6 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Dharamdeo Das reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, in Para-18 held as under:- “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.” 13. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharamdeo Das (supra), I do not find any good ground to allow the petition preferred by the petitioner. 14. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti