1 2025:CGHC:44829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3468 of 2020 Ghaneshwar Das Banjara S/o Amar Das Banjara, Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Peon In The Office Of Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. R/o - Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents {Cause title is taken from Case Information System) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 02/09/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the promotion of petitioner on post of Assistant Grade III and other consequential benefits. [with effect from 2014]. 10.2 To kindly grant any other writ / writs, order / orders, relief/reliefs in favour of petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Guard (Chowkidar) from his previous post as Helper (Khalashi) by the Block Development Officer, Mungeli vide Annexure P-1, thereafter, on 03.06.2007, he was promoted temporarily to the post of Peon (Bhritya) with a revised pay scale of 2500-55-2660-60-3200 /- . Subsequently, ₹ promotion order of the petitioner has been cancelled vide order 10.5.2011 by the Additional Collector on the ground that the same was not approved by the higher authorities. She submits that there is no such requirement of law in this regard and the petitioner ought to have afforded opportunity of hearing before passing such order of cancellation of his promotion on such ground. She further submits that aforesaid cancellation order dated 10.5.2011 was put to challenge by petitioner by filing writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 3410 / 2011. In that writ petition, earlier, status quo was granted in favour of the petitioner, subsequently vide final order dated 03.10.2018 passed in said writ petition, order of 3 cancellation of promotion of petitioner was set aside and the position of the petitioner on the promoted post (Peon) was restored. 2.1 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that though till date, promotion of any Peon has not been made by respondents, therefore, she is not pressing this petition on promotion and would confine her argument and petition to the relief that respondents authorities may be directed to include name of the petitioner in the ‘Gradation List’ of Peon issued by the respondent authorities. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 & 4, who are main contesting party. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4 while referring to its reply would submit that in compliance of the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3410 of 2011, position of the petitioner on the promoted post i.e. Peon, has been restored, but no further promotion has been made by the respondent authorities of any peon till date. She further submits that the petitioner has not filed any representation before respondent authorities to include his name in the gradation list of Peon. It is further submitted that name of the petitioner would be included in the gradation list of Peon issued by respondent authorities in accordance with law. 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2/State has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State would submit that though the petitioner was promoted on the post of Peon in the year 2007, but since his promotion order has not been approved by higher authorities,therefore, he was reverted back to the post of Guard (Chowkidar). He further submits that vide order dated 03.10.2018, cancellation of promotion order of the petitioner has been set aside by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. (S) No. 3410 of 2011, but the petitioner has never filed any objection to the gradation list issued by respondent authorities in the year 2018 & 2019. He further submits that since position of the petitioner has been restored on the post of Peon in 4 pursuance of the order dated 03.10.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3410 of 2011, therefore, his name shall be included in the gradation list of Peon issued by respondent authorities. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Though the petitioner has filed instant petition seeking his promotion, but as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that till date no promotion of peon’s of respondent Department, has been made by the respondent authorities, therefore, she confined her arguments and submission only to the extent of including name of petitioner in the gradation list of Peon issued by the respondent authorities. 7. Since vide order dated 3.10.2018 passed by Coordinate Bench in W.P. (S) No. 3410 of 2011, order of cancellation of promotion of petitioner issued by Additional Collector, has been set aside by this Court and consequently position of petitioner on the post of Peon has been restored. Therefore, whenever gradation list of Peon was prepared, respondent authorities ought to have included name of the petitioner in the gradation list in accordance with Rules, but petitioner’s name has not been included in the gradation list issued by respondent authorities. 8. Since order of cancellation of promotion to the post of Peon issued by Additional Collector has been set aside and petitioner’s position on the promoted post i.e. Peon has been restored vide order dated 03.10.2018 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 3410 of 2011, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get included his name in the gradation list of Peon issued by respondent authorities, as on date, when petitioner was promoted to the post of Peon i.e. on 3.6.2007. 5 9. In view of foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Respondent authorities are directed to include name of the petitioner in the gradation list of Peon issued by them in accordance with seniority of the petitioner. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.09 11:02:45 +0530