Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.15 11:06:07 +0530 2025:CGHC:31098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2177 of 2018 • Shailendra Kumar Meshram S/o Babulal Meshram Aged About 61 Years Working As Senior Mandi Secretary And Posted At Chhattisgarh Krishi Vipnan Board Raipur Division Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o Mamta Nagar Street No. 6 Ward No 17 , Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing ( Mandi ) Board Beej Bhawan G E Road Telibandha Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : None, in two rounds For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 07/07/2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and to quash the order dated 04-07-2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Respondent No. 2 and direct them to given promotional benefits to the petitioner alongwith all the consequential benefits including monetary benefits. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court further kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case of the petitioner for kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and 2 circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner. 2) Facts of the present case are that initially, petitioner was appointed as Secretary in Krishi Upaj Mandi. A meeting of Department Promotion Committee was convened in the year 2005 and petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Senior Secretary on the ground that his ACRs of the years 1997-98, 1999-2000 and 2001-02 were not available. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.12.2007, petitioner was found suitable for promotion w.e.f. 24.02.2007. Again, in year 2011, name of petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Senior Secretary [Selection Grade] on the ground that he had not completed mandatory five year service on the post of Senior Secretary. Subsequently, in the year 2016, name of petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that there is no vacant post available. Petitioner preferred WPS No. 1112 of 2017 before this Court which was
Decision
disposed of vide order dated 07.03.2017, pursuant to which, petitioner made a representation before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 04.07.2017, rejected the claim of petitioner. Petitioner got retired from services on 31.03.2018. 3) Learned counsel appearing for State submits that as the petitioner got retired from service on 31.03.2018, his claim for promotion cannot be considered according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors.1. 4) I have heard learned State counsel and perused the documents placed on the record. 1. 2024 LiveLaw SC 927 3 5) In the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the claim of an employee with regard to retrospective promotion cannot be considered after retirement. The relevant paragraphs 15 & 19 are 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 4 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 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 5 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 Recruit) 6 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)” 6) The petitioner has already retired from services and notional benefits cannot be extended to the petitioner from a retrospective date as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra). 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 8) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE vatti