Disposed

Akhilesh Kumar Bharadwaj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Feb 2025WPS/3351/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employee denied notional promotion from 2016 when DPC was not held annually as required by the 2003 Rules; the court set aside the reasoned-free rejection order and directed fresh consideration under Rule 6(4) within four months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Akhilesh Kumar Bharadwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Page 1 of 4

2025:CGHC:8209

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3351 of 2021

¶6

1 - Akhilesh Kumar Bharadwaj S/o Shri Balchand Bharadwaj Aged About 34 Years Working As Accountant At Municipal Council, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Director Urban Administration And Development, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Joint Director Regional Office, Urban Administration And Development, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Municipal Council Akaltara Through Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Nagar Panchayat Shivrinarayan Through Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶14

KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH

¶15

Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.03.25 10:52:00 +0530

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer For respondent No. 4 : Mr. Prateek Vishwakarma on behalf of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocates.

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

17.02.2025

¶22

The petitioner who is working as Assistant Grade III has filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming promotional benefit and seniority prior to 09.10.2020.

¶23

Facts as projected by the petitioner are that the respondent No. 5 had initiated the process of DPC in the year 2016 wherein the petitioner was found eligible for promotion. However, he was transferred to Akaltara and the promotion was granted to similarly situated person namely Akhilesh Mishra on 22.01.2016. Thereafter, from transferred petitioner preferred representation claiming his promotion from the date Akhilesh Mishra was granted, but no action was taken by the respondents. Aggrieved with the same, he filed WPS No. 6350/2019 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 26.08.2019 directed to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was promoted with effect from 09.10.2020 on the post of Accountant.

¶24

Thereafter, after getting promotion order on 09.10.2020, he has preferred representation claiming promotion with effect from 22.01.2016 when similar situated employee was granted promotion alleging that despite availability of vacant post the respondents have not conducted DPC which shall be conducted every year as per the Rule. Even no reason has been assigned for not conducting the DPC every year. The same has been rejected by the respondents on 25.03.2021. This order is being assailed in this writ petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have not taken into consideration the fact that the delay has been cause due to negligence on part of respondent No. 5 because of delay tactics adopted by him. As such, the right of the petitioner has been adversely affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that Annexure P/12 dated

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

25.03.2021 is not a speaking order, they have not addressed the grievance raised by the petitioner in proper perspective, therefore, Annexure P/12 may kindly be quashed and the respondent No. 2 be kindly directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion w.e.f. 14.09.2016.

¶28

He would further submit that as per the Rule 6(4) of the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, it is incumbent upon the respondents to conduct DPC every year. But the respondents deliberately on whimsical ground have not conducted DPC every year and thus, committed illegality which warrants interference by this Court and would pray for allowing the present writ petition.

¶29

On the other hand, opposing the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is claiming seniority from back date when the post was not vacant even otherwise it is well settled position of law that promotion is not fundamental right of the employees as such also the writ petition claiming promotion is not maintainable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and documents annexed with the writ petition it is quite vivid that the DPC has not been conducted every year which is violation of the Rules of 2003, as such, the respondents have committed illegality which warrants interference by this Court. Even otherwise it is well settled position of law that though promotion is not fundamental right but right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and the respondents without rhyme and reason has failed to consider the case of the petitioner which warrants interference by this Court by issuing writ of mandamus to them. From the bare perusal of the impugned order 25.03.2021 it is quite vivid that it has been passed without assigning any reason which is in violation of principle of natural justice also therefore, the impugned order

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

dated 25.03.2021 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of the Rule 6(4) of Rules of 2003 within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ

¶35

petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd-

¶37

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶38

Judge

¶39

Deshmukh

Akhilesh Kumar Bharadwaj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Akhilesh Kumar Bharadwaj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Co-Operative Marketing Society Maryadit Vs Board of Revenue

Ram Prasad Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rashmita Patel Vs Vivekanand Patel

Smt. Sheela Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Milibai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sumit Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh