Bhuneshwar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhuneshwar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to provide notional benefits to the petitioner from 16.06.2016 (the date juniors were promoted); no benefit attached to the promotional post was granted with retrospective effect.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who became eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) in December 2013 upon acquiring the graduation qualification but was not considered in the DPC convened in 2016 when his juniors were promoted, is entitled to promotion/notional benefits from 16.06.2016, and whether any benefit of the promotional post can be given with retrospective effect. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) in December 2013 after passing the graduation examination, but his name was not considered in the DPC convened in the year 2016.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's representation was rejected vide order dated 03.01.2017 without assigning sufficient reasons.

Key takeaways

Juniors to the petitioner were considered for promotion (referred to in this paragraph as promotion to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-II) while the petitioner was singled out.ratio¶26
As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 (14) SCALE 294, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit attached to the promotional post with retrospective effect.ratio¶27
Considering that juniors to the petitioner were promoted in the year 2016 and the petitioner's name was not considered, the respondent authorities are directed to provide notional benefits to the petitioner from 16.06.2016.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility acquired after the year of consideration - Denial of consideration in DPC - Notional benefits. The petitioner, appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-III on 30.04.2005 and regularized on 20.09.2007, acquired the requisite graduation qualification in December 2013. His candidature for promotion to Teacher (Panchayat) had been rejected in 2013 for want of that qualification; in the DPC convened in 2016, juniors to the petitioner were promoted vide order dated 16.06.2016 while his name was not considered, and his representation was rejected on 03.01.2017 without assigning sufficient reasons, the petitioner having been singled out. He was ultimately promoted vide order dated 15.05.2023. Following Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 (14) SCALE 294, the High Court (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) held that the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit attached to the promotional post with retrospective effect, but directed the respondent authorities to provide notional benefits to him from 16.06.2016, the date on which his juniors were promoted. Petition disposed of.

2025:CGHC:38365

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 1068 of 2017

1 - Bhuneshwar Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Raikona, Police Station Sarsiwan, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Balodabazar Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

04.08.2025

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief (s):-

“1) This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to quash the order dated 03/01/2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Balodabazar-Bhatapara.

1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) and increment to get similar pay-scale of the post of Teacher (Panchyat) as per orders passed in W.A. No.

475/2015.

1. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.”

Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III vide order dated 30.04.2005 and his services were regularized on 20.09.2007. He would further submit that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) in the year 2013, but his candidature was rejected on the ground that at the relevant time, he was not holding THE requisite qualification, i.e., a Graduation degree. He would contend that the petitioner acquired the graduation degree in the month of December, 2013 and thereafter, a DPC was convened in the year 2016, and juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) vide order dated 16.06.2016, but the name of the petitioner was not considered. He would contend that the name of the petitioner has been considered for promotion in the year 2023, and he has been promoted to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) vide order dated 15.05.2023. He would also contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to grant promotion along with consequential benefits from 16.06.2016, when juniors to the petitioner were promoted.

On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would oppose. He would submit that in the year 2013, the petitioner did not have the requisite

qualification; therefore, his name was not considered.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

Admittedly, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) in the month of December, 2013 after passing the graduation examination, but his name was not considered in the DPC convened in the year 2016.

The representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.01.2017, and sufficient reasons have not been assigned in the said order. The names of the juniors to the petitioner were considered for promotion to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-II, and the petitioner was singled out.

As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 (14) SCALE 294 , the petitioner would not be entitled for any benefit attached to the promotional post with retrospective effect but considering the fact that juniors to the petitioner were promoted in the year 2016 and the name of the petitioner was not considered, the respondents authorities are directed to provide notional benefits to the petitioner from 16.06.2016.

With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of

SD/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

Rekha