1 2025:CGHC:18712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 496 of 2020 1 - Mangala Sharma W/o Shri B.P. Sharma, Aged About 69 Years Retired Superintendent, Social Welfare Department, Chhattisgarh , R/o A-1, Police Station - City, Khub Chand Baghel Ward 67, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department Ministry, Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Pin - 492002, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 23/04/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- 2 “10.1 Because of, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash / set- aside the impugned order dated 04/06/2018 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 Hon’ble Court order to alter last pay on retirement dated 31/03/2009 and consequential retiral benefits including pension. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court order to alter last pay on retirement date 31/03/2009 and consequential retiral benefits including pension. 10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be order to pay dues petitioner with interest Because of, the petitioner harass to petitioner due to stubborn action to deliver mis-appropriate & belated decisive order, so cost also be award. 10.5 The Hon’ble Court, pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and just.” 3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, is that the petitioner was appointed as “Probation Officer” (Class III) on 15.02.1972, thereafter, he promoted to the post of Superintendent, i.e. Assistant Director Cadre (Gazetted) on 19.10.1981 in the Department of Social Welfare till her retirement i.e. on 31.03.2017. In Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 2.7.1999, she was not considered for promotion on the post of Superintendent, subsequently, on 22.11.2007 again DPC was held for promotion to the post of Assistant Director / Deputy Director, but name of the petitioner was not considered in that DPC also on the ground that her ACRs were not available, therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing Writ Petition (s) No. 6539 of 2006, in which, vide order dated 28.08.2017 (Annexure P-7), High Court directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Raipur with all consequential benefits, that order was 3 not complied with, therefore, petitioner filed contempt case bearing Cont. No.390 of 2018 against the then Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, which was disposed of by the High Court vider order dated 14.05.2018 directing respondent to comply with the order dated 28.08.2017 in its letter and spirit, but instead of compliance of said order of High Court, representation filed by the petitioner dated 4.10.2017, in compliance of 28.08.2017 passed by this Court in WPS No. 6539 of 2006, was rejected vide impugned order dated 04.06.2018 (Annexure P-1). 4. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the same. 5. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he does not want to agitate his grievance with regard to DPC held in the year 1999, rather he confined his argument only with regard to deprivation of petitioner for grant of promotion on the post of Assistant Director / Deputy Director in the DPC held on 22.11.2007. He further submits that in order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 6539 of 2006, there was clear-cut direction issued to the respondent to consider and decide the petitioner’s case for promotion on the post of Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Raipur with all consequential benefits, but the same was not complied with and no review DPC was conducted, therefore, the petitioner filed contempt case No. 390 of 2018, thereafter, impugned order dated 04.06.2018 was passed only to harrass the petitioner. He further submits that in the DPC convened on 22.11.2007, she was deprived only because of non-availability of her ACRs, but vide covering memo dated (Annexure P-5) dated 3.6.2007, 3.3.2007, 8.5.2007 and 4.6.2007, her ACRs has already been sent to the Joint Director, Panchayat 4 and Social Welfare Department, Raipur, despite that name of petitioner was not considered for promotion only to give benefit to her juniors by practicing nepotism. He further submits that without convening review DPC in compliance of the order of High Court, passing impugned order by respondent authorities itself shows that the petitioner has malafidely and knowingly deprived from her lawful right, therefore, he prays that relief sought by the petitioner may be granted to her and the respondent authorities may be directed to convene review DPC as of original DPC held on 22.11.2007 to consider case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Deputy Director and granting consequential benefits flow from said post. 6. Learned counsel for the State has filed its reply stating inter alia that DPC was convened on 2.7.1999 for consideration of promotion to the post of Deputy Director, but till date services of the petitioner was not regularized according to the Rule 12 (4) of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Civil Services (General Conditions of Service), Rules, 1961 (henceforth, “Rule, 1961”). He submits that in the DPC held on 22.11.2007, since ACRs of the petitioner was not available, therefore, her promotion on the post of Assistant Director / Joint Director was not considered, hence, instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. From the perusal of material available on record and impugned order dated 04.06.2018 (Annexure P-1), it reveals that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent on ad-hoc basis in the year 2000. During course of submission, counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the year 2007, when DPC was held, at that time also, she was posted as on the 5 post Superintendent (Ad hoc) in Observation Home (Girls) at Rajnandgaon. 9. Perusal of Annexure P-6 shows that as per gradation list dated 1.4.2004 of Probation Officer and District Auditor, Smt. Chameli Chandrakar, Shri Ravindranath Bose, Ms. Sharda Jaiswal, Shri Belar Min Beck and Mr. Amar Chandra Thakur were holding the post of Probation Officer / District Auditor. Since the petitioner was not promoted on regular post of Superintendent, as such, her original post was that of Probation Officer, therefore, as per Annexure P-6, she was also kept in zone of consideration in the DPC held on 22.11.2007, but her name was not considered for promotion on the ground of non-availability of her ACRs. 10. Vide communication dated 3.6.2007, 3.3.2007, 8.5.2007 and 4.6.2007, ACRs of the petitioner was sent by Superintendent, Observation Home, (Girls) Rajnandgaon to the Joint Director. All these communications were made prior to 22.11.2007 (the date on which, DPC was held), despite that the petitioner was deprived to consider her case for promotion on the post of Assistant Director / Deputy Director, only with malafide intention, because nothing has been mentioned in Annexure P-6 that ACRs of which years was not available, whereas, as has been stated above, her ACRs had already been sent prior to commencing DPC. 11. Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.08.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6539 of 2006 has passed the following order :- “(3) Be that as it may, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s case for promotion on the post of Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Raipur 6 with all consequential benefits, strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (4) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.” 12. Vide aforesaid order dated 28.08.2017, the respondent authorities were clearly directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s case for promotion on the post of Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Raipur, but instead of convening review DPC, after filing contempt petition No.390 of 2018 by the petitioner against respondent authorities, they passed impugned order wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner is not eligible to get promotion in view of Rule 12(4) of the Rules, 1961, as the petitioner was not regularized on the post of Superintendent. This ground is not sustainable at all because as per note-sheet of DPC (Annexuer P-6) dated 22.11.2007, feeder cadre for promotion on the post of Assistant Director / Deputy Director was Probation Officer / District Auditor and in the year 2007, original post of petitioner was Probation Officer (Class-III), though she was granted promotion on ad-hoc basis on the post of Superintendent, but her original post was Probation Officer, therefore, she was kept in zone of consideration in the DPC held on 22.11.2007. Even Mrs. Chameli Chandrakar, Mr. Rabindranath Bose, Ms. Sharda Jaiswal, Mr. Beler Min Bak and Mr. Amar Chandra Thakur, who were promoted to the post of Assistant Director/Deputy Director, have been promoted from the post of Probationary Officer/District Auditor. Therefore, aforesaid objection raised by respondents/State in its reply as well as in the impugned order is totally misconceived, perverse and illegal also. 7 13. In view of foregoing discussion, it is found that the petitioner has been illegally deprived from considering her promotion on the post of Assistant Director / Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, in the DPC held on 22.11.2007. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, this petition deserves to be allowed. 14. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.06.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to convene review DPC as of 22.11.2007 to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director / Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department from the date when her juniors were promoted on aforesaid post and, thereafter, consequential shall follow in respect of salary and other retiral dues to be paid to the petitioner. Such exercise will be done by the respondent authority expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.30 10:27:15 +0530