Disposed¶29

Deowrat Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Mar 2026WPS/7037/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 7037 of 2021; 2026:CGHC:13983 (NAFR); High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; decided 24/03/2026 by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey. Deowrat Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh & others (incl. Municipal Corporation Bhilai and Yaman Chandrakar). Keywords: promotion; seniority; Lower Division Clerk; Assistant Grade-II; Assistant Account Officer; Moharir; Municipal Corporation Bhilai/Risali; representation; 120-day direction; delay and laches; retirement of private respondent; disposed of. No statutes or precedents cited in the extract.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions: petitioner at liberty to make a representation before respondent No. 4; respondent No. 4 to consider the petitioner's name for promotion strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 120 days of receipt of the order. ¶29

Deowrat Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming seniority over respondent No. 5, was entitled to promotion (including to the post of Assistant Account Officer), warranting quashing of the impugned order dated 02/12/2020 (Annexure P/1) and consideration of his representations dated 17/06/2021 and 02/09/2021 — contested by respondents on the ground of delay and laches.

¶23

Court's answer

Taking into account the limited grievance, the Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 4 (Municipal Corporation Bhilai) and directed that authority to consider the petitioner's name for promotion strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 120 days from receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not adjudicate the merits, seniority dispute, or the delay-and-laches objection.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPS No. 7037 of 2021, disposed of on 24/03/2026 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey. Petitioner, an Office Superintendent with Municipal Corporation Risali/Bhilai claiming seniority over private respondent No. 5 (retired 28.02.2022), sought quashing of the impugned order dated 02/12/2020 (Annexure P/1) and consideration of his representations dated 17/06/2021 and 02/09/2021 for promotion (relief clause referencing promotion to Assistant Account Officer; counsel's submissions referring to the promotion order dated 27.01.1990 to Lower Division Clerk). Without deciding the merits or the delay-and-laches objection, the Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 4 (Municipal Corporation Bhilai) and directed that authority to consider his name for promotion strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 120 days of receipt of the order.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.03.30 11:28:23 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:13983

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 7037 of 2021

¶7

*** -** Deowrat Dewangan S/o Late Shri Mahavir Dewangan Aged About 59 Years Presently Working As Office Superintendent , Municipal Corporation Risali, 86/5, Nehru East , Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

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

¶11

2 - Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Through Its Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Directorate Sthaniya Nidhi Sampariksha Sanchalnalaya, Nagriya Prashshan Evam Vikas, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - Yaman Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Punau Ram Chandrakar Aged About 61 Years Assistant Account Officer, Municipal Corporation Raisali, Permanent Employee Of Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner	: Mr. Harneet Kaur, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 3	: Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocte
For Respondents No. 4 & 5	: Mr. PankajAgrawal, Advocate

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

24/03/2026

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

“ 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02/12/2020 (Annexure- P/1) holding that petitioner was entitled for promotion for the post of Assistant Account Officer with all consequential service benefits and direct the respondent-authorities to decide the representation dated 02/09/2021 and 17/06/2021 (ANNEXURE-P/6).

¶22

10.2 Any other relief which may deems fit may also be awarded along with cost of the petition.”

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was posted on the post of Lower Division Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Bhilai since 20.12.1982 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II on 27.01.1990. She would submit that respondent No. 5 was appointed as Moharir on 22.12.1982 and was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 27.01.1990, and said order is bad in law as petitioner is senior to respondent No. 5. She would submit that a direction may be issued the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion.

¶24

On the hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit that the petitioner has challenged the order of promotion passed in favour of respondent No. 5 dated 27.01.1990 on the post of Lower Division Clerk. He would contend that private respondent has already got retired from service on 28.02.2022. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner is hit by delay and laches and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would support the contention made by learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

¶28

Taking into consideration the limited grievance raised by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondent No. 4 and in turn said authority is directed to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶29

With the aforesaid direction(s), this petition is disposed of .

¶30

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

vatti

Deowrat Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deowrat Dewangan 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Lahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Onkar Prasad Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daulat Ram Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashi Bhooshan Singh Kshatri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Kumar Khande Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Maniram Lahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh