1 2025:CGHC:26542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5881 of 2017 1 - Praveen Kumar Thakur S/o Shri K.N.Thakur, Aged About 61 Years Presently Holding The Post Of Deputy Director Prosecution Posted At Raipur, Permanent R/o 27/34 Bandhwa Para, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Mandir Hasod, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Prosecution, Directorate, 3rd Block 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/ State : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate alongwith Ms. Apurva Nigam, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.06.2025 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to. issue direction to the respondents' authority to hold DPC within the time specified by themselves to hold DPC so that the case of the petitioner can be considered who is falling within the zone and is entitled in view of various rules and circular for promotion. b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue proper direction for those officers who deliberately preparing incorrect documents/new roaster with an intention to delay the process by depriving the employees to their legitimate right and punish them accordingly. c. Any, other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit may kindly be granted by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. The petitioner has claimed promotion from the post of Deputy Director Prosecution to Joint Director Prosecution. Admittedly, the age of the petitioner was 61 years in the year 2017 and has since retired from service. 4. In the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., reported in 2024 (14) SCALE 294, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, in paragraphs 15 & 19, as under: “15. The primary question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement? 19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the 3 date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC Online SC 1768, wherein it was observed as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 scc 209, a three-Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in -4- accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her’s fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. 5 It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on -6- the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’ “20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, reported 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P, (2006) 10 SCC 346, in the following words: ‘37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by 7 this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits…… 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime.” (emphasis supplied)” 5. Taking into consideration the fact that no notional benefits can be extended where promotion is claimed after retirement, no case is made out for interference. Thus, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi