Kiran Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1256

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 10745 of 2025

¶6

1 - Kiran Verma W/o Chandra Prakash Verma Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Accountant In Municipal Corporation, Risali, R/o 2/a, N.P.A., Sector-4, Municipality-Risali, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Under Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Joint Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Directorate Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Deputy Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Directorate, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Collector Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

7 - Municipal Corporation Risali (Through Commissioner), Bhilai Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Digitally BALRAM signed by PRASAD BALRAM DEWANGAN PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶17

	---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner	: Mr. PankajSingh, Advocate
For Respondent-State	: Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.7	: Mr. Raj Shengale on behalf of Mr. N. Nara Roy, Advocate
SB: Hon'bl	e Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

2

08/01/2026

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief (s) :-

¶22

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith grant necessary administrative sanction and consequently, grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in terms of applicable Rules of 2018 as amended in 2021 along with all benefits, monetary or otherwise, consequential thereof, within a time bound manner.

¶23

b) Hold and declare that the continued denial of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer is bad in law,

¶24

c). Direct the Respondents to extend all consequential benefits including notional seniority, pay fixation, and arrears that would have accrued to the Petitioner had her promotion been timely considered.

¶25

d). Grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner has completed relevant period of service as Accountant and is having requisite qualification for consideration of his name for promotion on the post of Assistant Account Officer. He submits that in the establishment of petitioner, there is only one sanction post of Assistant Account Officer and according to the rules, 75% of Assistant Account Officer is to be filled by direct recruitment and 25% post is to be filled by promotion. As there is only one vacant post and there is ban in recruitment for direct appointment, respondent No.7/Municipal Corporation has sent proposal to relax the rules to fill-up the post of Assistant Account Officer lying vacant through promotion. Proposal

¶27

3

¶28

sent by respondent No.7 is pending consideration at the Secretariat. Petitioner has obtained the proceedings in this regard from the office of Secretariat under Right to Information Act and from the documents, it is appearing that proposal is placed before the Officer for approval. Therefore, at this stage he is only seeking direction to respondents/State to consider and take decision on the proposal forwarded by respondent No.7 at the earliest.

¶29

Learned State counsel submits that as petitioner is not pressing this petition on merits and only seeking a direction to respondents-State to take decision on the proposal forwarded by respondent No.7, he is having no objection.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondents No.7 also submits no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶31

In view of submission made by learned counsel for respective parties without entering into merits on the claim of petitioner, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing respondents No.1 to 4 to take decision on the proposal forwarded by respondent No.7 for relaxing the ratio of promotion as provided under the rules in accordance with law expeditiously, keeping in mind that proposal is forwarded in the year 2024.

¶32

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.

¶33

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶34

Balram

Kiran Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Verma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annapurna Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indraman Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Ram Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sangeeta Devi Sao Vs State Govt. of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh