1 – M.P. Shrivash S/o Late Shri R. D. Shrivash, Aged About 57 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative, Mahanadi Bhavan
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.01 15:31:31 +0530 2025:CGHC:28306 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
Legal Reasoning
It is a well settled principle that promotion 19. 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
Arguments
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 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner 2 2 - Registrar Cooperative Society Of Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh For Petitioners For Respondents/State : : --- Respondents Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate 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?