1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2685 of 2023 1 - N.K. Jadhav S/o Shri S.R. Jadhav Aged About 66 Years Accountant/j.R. Auditor, R/o Jai Hind Chowk, Raju Talab, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh. H.Q. Indrawati Bhawan, Phase -Iii, 1st Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08.01.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining the concerning matter. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondents for considering the name of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Senior Auditor w.e.f. 01/02/2005 and the further, on the post of Accounts Officer w.e.,f. 01/02/2010. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities for grant of arrears of pay and allowances with all consequential benefits of services. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as deem fit and proper with cost of petition.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPS No. 2630 of 2023 (B.K. Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 05.01.2026. It is jointly prayed that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:– 3 “9. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed on record any statutory rule, regulation or executive instruction which confers upon him an indefeasible right to retrospective promotion from the dates claimed by him. There is also no material on record to establish that a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee had considered his case for promotion to the posts of Senior Auditor or Accounts Officer on the claimed dates and that he was illegally superseded or ignored. Mere existence of a vacancy does not automatically entitle an employee to promotion from the date of occurrence of such vacancy. 10. The contention of the petitioner that restoration of absorption necessarily entitles him to retrospective promotions also cannot be accepted. Restoration of absorption ensures continuity of service and eligibility for consideration in accordance with rules, but it does not, by itself, mandate retrospective promotion unless the governing service rules so provide. The respondents have demonstrated that the petitioner’s case was duly considered and he was granted promotion in accordance with rules and seniority as and when found appropriate. The plea of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is also misconceived. The petitioner has failed to establish that he was treated differently from other similarly situated employees or that any junior employee was promoted ahead of him in violation of the 4 rules. In absence of proof of hostile discrimination or arbitrariness, the constitutional challenge cannot be sustained. 11. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the petitioner has already superannuated from service. Grant of retrospective promotions at this stage, in the absence of a clear legal mandate, would amount to conferring a benefit which is not sanctioned by law and may have cascading effects on seniority, pay fixation and service benefits of other employees, which is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the respondents have acted within the framework of law and applicable service rules. The petitioner has been granted promotion as per due consideration, and no illegality, arbitrariness or violation of constitutional provisions is made out warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ” 3. Since the grievance of the petitioner is identical to the one considered in WPS No. 2630 of 2023 (B.K. Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 05.01.2026, and the petitioner in the present case is also seeking the same relief, the 5 writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of and in line with the aforesaid judgment. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha