Prakash Kumar Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:27489

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 5213 of 2025

¶6

1 - Prakash Kumar Chandel S/o Late Mr Manbahal Singh Chandel Aged About 54 Years Post Peon, Posted At Govt Higher Secondary School Dumali, Block- Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G)

¶10

2 - Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Commissioner Schedule Caste And Schedule Cast Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribe Development Branch, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G)

¶13

5 - The Collector Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶14

6 - The District Education Officer District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	:	Mr.Shalvik Tiwari,Advocate.
For State-Resp	ondents	Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer.
	Hon'ble	Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
		Order on Board

¶18

24-06-2025

¶19

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking following relief(s)

¶20

“10.1 To direct the respondent authority concerned to consider the case

¶21

of the petitioner for grant of promotion from Class IV to class III

¶22

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN

¶23

2

¶24

post, in accordance with the judgment dated 28/03/2025 rendered by this Hon’ble court in WPS 5270/2023 (Hinchharam Sahu and Anr Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors) for identically situated employees.

¶25

10.2 To quash and set aside order dated 14/03/2024 (Annexure P/2) in which date of 10/09/2018 has been considered for fixing seniority of the petitioner.

¶26

10.3 To quash and set aside Seniority list dated 24/09/2024 (Annexure P/3) in which seniority of the petitioner has been considered from his date of absorption to the school education department.

¶27

10.4 Any other relief which the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶28

Brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that petitioner was appointed on 27-01-1996 on daily wages (Annexure-P/4) and vide order dated 08-09-2008, in view of the policy for regularization of the daily wage employees, the petitioner was regularized (Annexure-P/5). On 06-07-2022 the respondent No.6 again passed an order of regularization of the petitioner (Annexure-P/6). The petitioner relying upon the judgment/order passed by this Court in WPS 5270/2023 (Hinchharam Sahu and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors) claims that the petitioner being identically situated employee, he is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the present petition.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 14-03-2024 is unreasonable, unjust and discriminatory and, therefore, it is hit by the postulates of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has already been regularized by order dated 08-09-2008 under the respondent No.1 department, but, due to illegal and malicious attitude of respondent No.5, the petitioner is being deprived from promotion, which is perse-illegal. The petitioner has already been regularized by order dated 08-09-

¶30

3

¶31

2008 under the respondent No.1 and, therefore, his Permanent Pension Account Number (PPAN) has been allotted to him and the amounts towards provident fund were also deducted from the date of regularization. The petitioner is possessing requisite qualification for getting promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-III. The petitioner has worked for 28 years under the respondent No.1 department without getting single chance of promotion, which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The Peons working in District Kondagaon have already been granted promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III. Instead of considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, vide order dated 06-07-2022, the respondent No.6 has issued an order for regularization of services of petitioner, whereas the services of the petitioner has already been regularized by order dated 08-09-2008. In the District Kanker also, the posts of Assistant Grade-III under promotional quota are lying vacant, but, the respondents authorities are not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that a reasoned order has been passed by respondent authority which is not required to be interfered with. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the School Education Department, as such his previous service is not required to be calculated for the purposes of his promotion.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with great circumspection.

¶34

In WPS No.5270 of 2023 vide order dated 28-03-2025 this Court while deciding the case of Hinchharam Sahu and another who are similarly placed employees being regularized by the same order dated 08-09-2008 along with the present petitioner, has observed as under:

¶35

“6. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis way back in the year 1995 as Class IV employees. Thereafter, their services were regularized vide order

¶36

4

¶37

dated 8.9.2008 on the basis of circular dated 5.3.2008. As such the contention of respondent No.5 that the petitioners were regularized on 23.6.2022 is palpably illegal. Once the petitioners were regularized on 8.9.2008, as such they have already completed more than 15 years of service and only on the basis of absorption of their services in the School Education Department it cannot be said that they have not completed sufficient period of service for their promotion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again said that promotion is an exigency of service and whenever required the employer is having duty to consider the case of employees for grant of promotion. Stagnation is regarded to be a thing due to which the performance and efficiency of the employee is affected. Whenever in the rules there are avenues of promotion, the authorities are bound to pass appropriate orders in respect of promotion as per entitlement of the employees. In the present case also, the petitioners are entitled for promotion in all aspects. The other similarly placed employees have already been promoted, but the petitioners were not granted promotion for the reasons best known to respondent No.5. The employees, who were regularized after the petitioners, namely, Tulsiram Uike, who has been regularized on 11.9.2008, has been given promotion. Likewise, Chain Singh Yadav, Rudra Pratap Singh have already been promoted.

¶38

The employee has the right to be considered for promotion as it is a fundamental right ensuring equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

In a similar judgment in Major General H.M. Singh, VSM v. Union of

¶40

India , (2014) 3 SCC 670 , the question which had arisen before their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that whether nonconsideration of claim of appellant would be discriminatory violating

¶41

5

¶42

of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have answered the query in affirmative while taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Their Lordships have further held that the appellant could not be denied the promotion since the appellant had 14 months of army service remaining at the time when the vacancy in the rank of Lt. General arose on 1.1.2007. Their Lordships have held as under:-

¶43

“28. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the non-consideration of the claim of the appellant would violate the fundamental rights vested in him under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The answer to the aforesaid query would be in the affirmative, subject to the conditions, that the respondents were desirous of filling the vacancy of Lieutenant General, when it became available on 1.1.2007. The factual position depicted in the counter affidavit reveals, that the respondents indeed were desirous of filling up the said vacancy. In the above view of the matter, if the appellant was the senior most serving Major General eligible for consideration (which he undoubtedly was), he most definitely had the fundamental right of being considered against the above vacancy, and also the fundamental right of being promoted if he was adjudged suitable. Failing which, he would be deprived of his fundamental right of equality before the law, and equal protection of the laws, extended by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view, that it was in order to extend the benefit of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that he was allowed extension in service on two occasions, firstly by the Presidential order dated 29.2.2008, and thereafter, by a further Presidential order dated 30.5.2008. The above orders clearly depict, that the aforesaid extension in service was granted to the appellant for a period of three months (and for a further period of one month), or till the approval of the ACC, whichever is earlier. By the aforesaid orders, the respondents desired to treat the appellant justly, so as to enable him to acquire the honour of promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General, (in case the recommendation made in his favour by the Selection Board was approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet), stands affirmed. The action of the authorities in depriving the appellant due consideration for promotion to the rank of the Lieutenant General, would have resulted in violation of his fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such an action at the hands of the respondents would unquestionably have been arbitrary.”

¶44

As such, in the instant case, respondent No.5 is directed to consider

¶45

the case of the petitioners for grant of their promotion and pass

¶46

6

¶47

appropriate orders in respect of their promotion. The petitioners are said to be going to retire on 30.4.2025, as such the exercise for their promotion be completed within a period of 15 days from production of a copy of this order before their retirement so that they may get funds of their promotion and the consequential benefit of pension and other service benefits may also be calculated on the basis of their promotion.”

¶48

in view of the fact that the present petitioner being similarly situated employee, is also entitled for similar relief(s) as have been extended by the order dated 28-03-2025 passed in WPS No.5270/2023 (Hinchharam Sahu and Another Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others) , therefore, in the present case, respondent No.6 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of his promotion and pass appropriate orders in respect of his promotion keeping in view the aforesaid observations made in the order dated 28-03-2025 and service records of the petitioner. The exercise for his promotion be completed within a period of five months from production of a copy of this order.

¶49

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

¶52

Judge

¶53

Aadil

Prakash Kumar Chandel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Kumar Chandel v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Manmohan Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Alpa Sankhyak Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Kosgai Para Baloda Vs Janmejai Mahobe

Smt. Shikha Kumar Vs Shri Vivek Tiwari

Yes Bank Limited Vs the Tashilar

Ram Baran Chaurasia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chamru Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh