1 2025:CGHC:17938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4310 of 2017 1 - Carmela Lakra W/o E. G. Lakra, Aged About 60 Years Occupation Under Secretary, Home Jail Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Upper Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ajay Singh Upper Chief Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhagwan Singh Kushwaha, Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - N. D. Kundani, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - M. R. Thakur, General Administration Department Room 3 And 4 , Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- For Petitioner : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no. 1 & 2 for consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Deputy Secretary from the date of when the Juniors of the petitioner have been promoted and also directed to provide all consequential benefit to the petitioner for the post of Deputy Secretary from the date of when the benefit for the post of Deputy Secretary has been provided to the Junior of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the issue appropriate writ against the respondent no.3 who without any jurisdiction reduced the Grade of the petitioner from her confidential report which has been provided by the immediate superior officer under who supervision the petitioner has been work. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 3 2. The facts of the present case are that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Secretary under the General Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh, in the year 2017. The petitioner has pleaded that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. It is pleaded that in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2014, she was initially awarded Grade-A; however, the Accepting Authority changed it from Grade-A to Grade-B with ulterior motive. He would also contend that the petitioner was not communicated with regard to her ACR for the year 2014-15. It is also pleaded that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 19.6.2017 for promotion from the post of Under Secretary to the post of Deputy Secretary. It is also pleaded that respondents No.4 to 6 were considered for promotion to the said post, though they were juniors to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.7.2017 and has sought a direction to respondents No.1 & 2 to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was at Sr. No.1 in the gradation list of Under Secretaries. He would contend that respondents No.4 to 6 were juniors to the petitioner. He would further contend that in the DPC, the name of the petitioner was not considered and recommended on the -4- ground that her ACR for the year 2014 was graded as ‘Good’ and not ‘Very Good’. He would submit that according to the circular issued by the State of Chhattisgarh from time to time, the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of her social status. He would further submit that at present the petitioner has retired from the services but the promotion to the next higher post would affect her pension and other retiral dues. Thus, he would pray to allow the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that the ACR of respondents No.4 to 6 were much better than the petitioner. She would further submit that the petitioner was awarded Grade-A in the ACR of 2014 and it was duly communicated which is evident from Annexure-R/2 dated 18.3.2015. She would also submit that according to the procedure adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee as mentioned in the minutes of meeting of the DPC, the Committee considered the ACRs of preceding five years. She would further argue that the ACR of the petitioner for one of the relevant years was not up to the mark, therefore, though her name was considered by the DPC, but not recommended for promotion. She would also argue that initially, the petitioner was awarded Grade-A+ for the ACR of 2014, but the Accepting Authority modified it from Grade A+ to Grade-A 5 and this change was duly communicated to the petitioner. She would also contend that the petitioner failed to make a representation within time and therefore, her representation was also rejected and it was never challenged before any authority or before the Court and it attained finality. She would state that as the petitioner has already retired from the services in the year 2019, notional benefits cannot be extended. She would also state that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was holding the post of Under Secretary in the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh in the relevant year 2016-17. She belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. It is also not in dispute that in the ACR of 2014, she was initially awarded Grade-A+, but the Accepting Authority modified it to Grade “A”. The modification was duly communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.3.2015. The reply filed by the State would further reveal that a representation was made by the petitioner at a belated stage against the said communication, which was rejected. The petitioner failed to challenge the said rejection order and it attained the finality. The minutes of DPC would further reveal that the Committee considered the ACRs of five years prior to date of meeting i.e. 19.6.2017. The ACR of the -6- petitioner for the year 2014 was not up to the mark, and since the criteria for promotion was merit-cum-seniority, her name, though considered, was not recommended for promotion. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already retired from services. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. 8. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi