Pitambar Bagh Vs District Judge, Raipur

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2	: Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate on behalf
	of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justic	e Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶15

C A V Order

¶16

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶17

reliefs:-

¶18

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased

¶19

to call for the entire records relating to this case.

¶20

2

¶21

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the order dated

¶22

10.01.2023 (ANNEXURE P/9) and order for grant of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Reader Grade I from the date his juniors were promoted.

¶23

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the District Judge to grant 3rd Higher Pay scale as he has already completed 30 years of service

¶24

10.4 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.”

¶25

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was initially appointed

¶26

as Assistant Grade-III in the District Court Establishment on 17.08.1990, and ever since his appointment, he has rendered sincere, efficient and unblemished service, earning timely promotions during the course of his employment. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was discharging his duties as Reader Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 5200–20200/- with Grade Pay Rs. 2800/-, and his name was reflected at Serial No. 1 in the gradation list of Reader Grade-II as on 01.04.2019. However, the petitioner was unfortunately subjected to a departmental inquiry on the allegation of missing record in a complaint case titled Chand Jain vs. Singh (Complaint Case No. 11818/2014). Upon

¶27

3

¶28

conclusion of the inquiry, the District Judge, Raipur, vide order dated 20/22.10.2020, imposed upon the petitioner a penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect under Rule 10(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. During the pendency of the said departmental proceedings, several juniors to the petitioner were promoted from the post of Reader Grade-II to Reader Grade-I vide order dated 05.09.2020, whereas the case of the petitioner was kept under the sealed cover procedure on account of the pending inquiry. Aggrieved by the said punishment order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Registrar General of the Hon’ble High Court, and the Hon’ble High Court, upon due consideration, was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the punishment order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, vide order dated 28.07.2022. Consequent thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.08.2022, seeking retrospective promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, i.e., 05.09.2020, along with consequential benefits of pay fixation and seniority. Subsequently, the District Judge, Raipur, granted the petitioner promotion to the post of Reader Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 9300–34800/- with Grade Pay Rs. 4300/-, vide order dated 05.11.2022, and the petitioner assumed charge of the promotional post on 09.11.2022. The petitioner respectfully submits that he is legally entitled to be promoted from the date on which his juniors were granted

¶29

4

¶30

promotion, and denial of such benefit from 05.09.2020 is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the settled principles of service jurisprudence. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.11.2022 seeking correction of his seniority as well as another representation of the same date praying for the grant of the third higher pay scale upon completion of 30 years of continuous service. However, both the said representations were rejected by the Learned District Judge, Raipur, vide non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 10.01.2023, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner’s legitimate service rights and entitlements.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is legally entitled to be promoted to the post of Reader Grade-I from the date his juniors were granted promotion vide order dated 05.09.2020, particularly when the punishment order passed against him has already been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court, thereby removing any impediment to his promotion. It was further contended that the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of the 3^rd Higher Pay Scale on completion of 30 years of continuous and satisfactory service, and the rejection of his claim in this regard is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It was also urged that the impugned rejection order passed by the respondent authorities is a non-speaking order, devoid of any reasoning or application of mind, and thus violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice and the constitutional rights

¶32

5

¶33

guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Union of India Etc. Etc vs. K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27^th August, 1991.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the petitioner was appointed as Process Writer in the District Establishment, Raipur on 17.08.1990 and his promotions were granted strictly as per rules. He further submits that a departmental enquiry was duly conducted in accordance with the rules, wherein it was alleged that while working as Process Writer in the Court of Second Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur, during the period from 08.08.2016 to 02.02.2017, the petitioner had neglected his duty to maintain custody of the record in Complaint Case No. 11818/2014 (Nemichand Jain vs. Om Prakash Singh) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, resulting in loss of record. The Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 14.09.2020, found the charges proved, whereupon the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 20.10.2020, imposed the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect under Rule 10(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. He further submits that during the pendency of the said departmental enquiry, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) followed the sealed cover procedure as per the established guidelines, since junior employees were promoted vide order dated 05.09.2020. Subsequently, in

¶35

6

¶36

compliance with the order dated 28.07.2022 issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was promoted from Reader Grade-II to Reader Grade-I vide order dated 05.11.2022, and he assumed charge on 09.11.2022. However, since the order dated 28.07.2022 merely set aside the earlier punishment order without recording a finding of innocence or acquittal, the petitioner’s subsequent representation dated 29.11.2022 was not accepted by the DPC, which acted within the framework of law. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. K.V. Janakiraman & Ors. , AIR 1991 SC 2010 , wherein it has been held that an employee has no right to promotion, but only a right to be considered for promotion, and an employee found guilty of misconduct cannot claim retrospective promotion. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s claim for the 3^rd Higher Pay Scale is untenable as the order dated 28.07.2022 did not declare him innocent, and his representation was rightly rejected by the competent authority. Hence, no fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated, and he has already been granted benefits strictly in accordance with rules. The writ petition is being devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner is already holding the post of Reader Grade-I in the office of respondent No. 1. He further submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner is confined solely to the alleged inaction or omission

¶38

7

¶39

and as such, the respondent has neither any administrative nor legal role to play in the subject matter of the present petition. The answering respondent has been impleaded only as a formal party to the proceedings, without any specific allegation or cause of action made out against it. Therefore, the present petition is misconceived, unwarranted and liable to be dismissed at the very threshold.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶41

In the matter of Union of India Etc. Etc vs. K.V. Jankiraman Etc passed on 27^th August, 1991 , it has observed as under:-

¶42

“Yet, the sealed cover procedure was adopted. The Tribunal has rightly directed the authorities to open the sealed cover and if the respondent was found fit for promotion by the DPC, to give him the promotion from the date his immediate junior Shri M. Raja Rao was promoted pursuant to the order dated April 30, 1986. The Tribunal has also directed the authorities to grant to the respondent all the conse- quential benefits. The Tribunal has further stated in the impugned order that its order would not mean that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the respondent-em-ployee should not go on. We see no reason to interfere with this order. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.

¶43

In this case, the respondent-employee's case was considered for promotion by the DPC in August 1982. However, the result was kept in a sealed cover in view of the pending disciplinary proceedings

¶44

8

¶45

against him. According to the employee, on October 11, 1985 the disciplinary proceedings ended in complete exoneration. Thereafter, a DPC was again constituted in March 1986 which, after consideration of the employee's case, recommended him for promotion w.e.f. July 26, 1986. this was obviously contrary even to the instructions contained in the Memorandum. He was entitled to promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted in or after August 1982 if he was in August 1982 found fit for promotion by the DPC, The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly directed the appellant to open the sealed cover and if the DPC in 1982 had found him fit for promotion, to give him the promotion from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. However, while doing so, the Tribunal has also directed arrears of salary to be paid for intervening period along with all consequential benefits. Since we have held disagreeing with the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal that the benefit of the arrears of salary will not flow automatically but will depend upon the circumstances in each case, we modify the said order to the extent it directs the payment of arrears of salary, and direct the appellant-authority to consider whether the employee in the circumstances of the case was entitled to any arrears of salary and to what extent. The authority will, of course give reasons for denial of the whole or part of the arrears of salary The appeal is, there fore, allowed partly with no order as to costs.”

¶46

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the punishment order has already been set aside by the appellate authority as such in the opinion of this Court the petitioner is entitled for promotion at par with the other similarly placed persons who have been promoted to the post of

¶47

9

¶48

Reader Grade-I. After passing of appellate order dated 28.7.2022 there is nothing against the petitioner. The punishment order dated 20.10.2020 has already been set aside as such the petitioner is also entitled for promotion from 5.9.2020 at par with the other similarly situated persons who have been promoted to the post of Reader Grade-I along with all consequential benefits including 3^rd Higher Pay Scale.

¶49

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶50

SD/-

¶51

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶52

The date when	The date when	The date when	the judgment is
the judgment is	the judgment is	uploaded on the we	bsite
reserved	pronounced
		Operative	Full
29.10.2025	19.11.2025	19.11.2025	19.11.2025

¶53

Raghu Jat

Pitambar Bagh v. District Judge, Raipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitambar Bagh v. District Judge, Raipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokesh Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrakala Ghritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yamuna Bai Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Roopchand Sahu

Pratipal Garhewal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Vaishnava Vs State of Chhattisgarh