Bastar, Chhattisgarh v. Chhattisgarh

Nos.33, 34 and 35, respectively. The private respondents challenged the aforesaid position in the seniority list by filing representations which respondent No.2 rejected by order dated 18-3-2016. The private respondents were still aggrieved and not satisfied with the order passed on their representations and thus, they again made representation which respondent No.2 considered by forming a committee for (WPS No.1827/2020) redressing the grievance raised by them, however, the said committee found the seniority position to be just and proper leading to filing of WPS No.6272/2019 in which this Court by order dated 20-8-2019 directed respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioners therein i.e. the private respondents herein on its own merit in respect of their entitlement for promotion/seniority on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 1-1-2013. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 26-10-2019 granting the representation of the private respondents giving notional seniority to them with effect from 1-1-2013 on the post of Assistant Engineer and gradation list was issued on 13-2-2020 showing them seniors to the present petitioners. Return by Respondents No.2 & 3 CREDA

5. Return has been filed by respondent No.2 stating inter alia that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the existence of an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioners, as appeal was preferred but that has been withdrawn and respondents No.4 to 6 were appointed on the post of Junior Engineer/Sub-Engineer and they were regularised with effect from 1-4-2008, and the applicable promotion regime is governed by the amended CREDA Service Rules of 2004 (clauses 12.3 and 12.4). It has been further stated that respondents No.4 to 6 had completed 5 years of service on 1-1-2013 and were eligible for promotion in accordance with the amended mandatory (WPS No.1827/2020) Rules and it has never been the petitioners’ case that they were not eligible and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Return by Private Respondents No.4 to 6

6. Respondents No.4 to 6 have filed their separate returns stating inter alia that a duly constituted committee has recommended the grant of notional seniority to respondents No.4 to 6, the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands and moreover, the examination/enquiry committee report dated 15-2-2016 has not been subjected to challenge. It has further been stated that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches and grant of notional seniority is a corrective measure, not a favour to the private respondents. It has also been stated that the delay in convening DPC was caused by CREDA which is a purely administrative lapse, hence respondents No.4 to 6 cannot be penalised for the inaction on the part of CREDA and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

7. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that respondents No.4 to 6 were promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer only on 11-2-2015, as such, they have to be treated to be born in the cadre of Assistant Engineer with effect from 11-2-2015, whereas the petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 25-4- (WPS No.1827/2020) 2013, as such, they are admittedly and undisputedly seniors to respondents No.4 to 6 on the post of Assistant Engineer, therefore, merely on the ground that the alleged vacancy was there since the year 2008, respondents No.4 to 6 cannot claim seniority with effect from 11-1-2013. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar State Electricity Board and others v. Dharamdeo Das1 to contend 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. Submissions on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 CREDA

8. Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3/Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (CREDA), would submit that the CREDA Service Rules of 2004 were amended with effect from 9-7-2012 and the qualifying service for promotion was reduced from 8 years to 5 years, therefore, respondents No.4 to 6, whose services were reckonable from 1-4-2008, completed 5 years by 1-1-2013 and became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. As such, it is absolutely clear that the date from which the seniority of respondents No.4 to 6 was to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was 1-4-2008, as they had completed 5 years of service on 1-1-2013 and were eligible for promotion in accordance with the amended Rules and it has never been the petitioners’ case 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768 (WPS No.1827/2020) that they were not eligible. Therefore, notional seniority has rightly been granted to respondents No.4 to 6 with effect from 1-1-2013. Submissions on behalf of Private Respondents No.4 to 6

9. Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.4 to 6, would vehemently submit that the enquiry report dated 15-2-2016 of the committee has not been subjected to challenge by the petitioners and the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. He would further submit that the private respondents No.4 to 6 were entitled for promotion with effect from 1-1-2013 prior to the petitioners’ appointment dated 25-4-2013 and the Department’s failure to convene the DPC cannot be held against respondents No.4 to 6. He would also submit that respondent No.2/employer has the power to rectify such administrative failure and lapses and since respondents No.4 to 6 were eligible for promotion with effect from 1-1-2013, but they were wrongly denied promotion due to administrative lapses, notional seniority can be granted from the date of eligibility. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Priyanka and others etc. etc.2, C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala and others3, Union of India and others v. N.R. Parmar and others4, Union of India and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others5 and S.D.