M. R. Koshale Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:39081

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6401 of 2017

¶6

M. R. Koshale S/o Shri I. Koshale, Aged About 57 Years Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, G S T Officer, Posted In Korba, Cirlce 1, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Shri R. L. Khunte, Commercial Tax Officer, Raipur, Circle 6, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi P. L.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

06/08/2025

¶15

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

¶16

“10.1. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner's case.

¶17

10.1.1 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02.11.17 and 30.10.17 (Ann.P/1) passed by the Respondent NO.1 and direct to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Commercial Tax Officer as per Rules from the date when his junior promoted i.e. 26.04.16.

¶18

2

¶19

10.2 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed.

¶20

10.3 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner. ”

¶21

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would confine his submission to the contention that the petitioner was aged about 57 years at the time of filing the present writ petition and presently, he has retired from service. He would further submit that the petitioner is claiming retrospective promotion to the post of Commercial Tax Officer from the date on which his junior was promoted.

¶22

On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, learned counsel for the State, would submit that the petitioner has already retired from service; thus, he cannot be granted promotion from a retrospective date. He has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512 , which lays down that the claim for promotion after retirement is not maintainable.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file.

¶24

In the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the earlier precedents, held that promotion takes effect from the date it is granted, not from the date when a vacancy arises or the post is created. There is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, but no fundamental right to promotion

¶25

3

¶26

itself. Further, once an employee retires, the claim for promotion or consequential monetary benefits cannot be entertained. It has further been held that promotion cannot be retrospectively conferred after retirement, except where rules specifically permit or where promotions are delayed illegally during service tenure.

¶27

In the present case, the petitioner retired without actually being promoted to the post of Commercial Tax Officer. His claim for retrospective promotion is hit directly by the ratio laid down in the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) . Therefore, the prayer for retrospective promotion from 26.04.2016, when his junior was promoted, is not maintainable after his retirement, especially when the relief would have consequential monetary implications contrary to the law. Further, the retrospective promotion adversely affecting others in the cadre is barred by the settled law ( State of Bihar v. Akhouri

¶28

Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334; Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272; Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’

¶29

Assn. v. State of U.P., (2006) 10 SCC 346 ).

¶30