1 2025:CGHC:31476-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 452 of 2025 1 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Raipur, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492013. (Respondent No. 03 in W.P.S.) 2 - Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492013. (Respondent No. 02 in W.P.S.) 3 - General Manager (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492013 (Respondent No. 04 in W.P.S.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Anil Kumar Shrivastava S/o Shri V.P. Shrivastava Aged About 59 Years R/o F-8, Ralas Enclave Near Gaytri Hospital, Dagnia, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner in W P S) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Energy Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 01 in W P S) 3 - Suresh Kumar Bajpayee (Add. C.E.) Through General Manager (H.R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur,chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 05 in W P S) 4 - Kalesh Chandra Agrawal (Add. C. E.) Through General Manager (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 06 in W P S) 5 - Vimal Kumar (Add. C. E.) Through General Manager (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 07 in W P S ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 6 - K. S. Ramakrihsna (Add. C. E.) Through General Manager (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 08 in W P S) 7 - Kanti Kumar Mohabe Superintendent Engineer, Through General Manager (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 9 in W P S) 8 - Devendra Kumar Tuli Superintendent Engineer, Through General Manager (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 10 in W P S) 9 - Yogesh Kumar Rtd. Superintendent Engineer, Through General Manager (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 11 in W P S) 10 - Jayesh Boade Superintendent Engineer, Through General Manager (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent Np. 12 in W P S) 11 - Mushtak Ahmed Superintendent Engineer, Through General Manager (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 13 in W P S) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Jirendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 .07 .2025 1 Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms.Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy 3 Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 on I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 112 days in filing the present appeal. 2 On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3 By way of present writ appeal under Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were respondent Nos. 3, 2 & 4 respectivley in the writ petition, have challenged the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2583 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 4 Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein was initially appointed on 11.5.1985 on the post of Assistant Engineer in the then Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. After bifurcation of State of Madhya Pradesh, services of writ petitioner were allocated to newly carved out State of Chhattisgarh. In the year 2008, the State Electricity Board was dissolved and in its place five new companies were formed. Petitioner was deputed in Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited. While serving in erstwhile 4 State of Madhya Pradesh, petitioner along with private respondents herein was granted time bound promotion and as per Time bound Promotion Scheme, higher pay-scale was granted to them. In the gradation list, as on 1.4.1990, name of petitioner was above the name of private respondents herein and even after allocation of their services to the State of Chhattisgarh, in the gradation list prepared in Chhattisgarh, name of petitioner was placed above the private respondents herein. 5 Chhattisgarh Vidhyut Abhiyanta Sangh, a registered association of Engineers working in the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, filed writ petition bearing WPC No.993/2008 claiming seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineer from the date of grant of benefit of time bound promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Said writ petition filed by Association was opposed by respondent State on the ground that seniority on the cadre can be granted only when the employees concerned assumed the charge in the said cadre. The learned Single Judge of this Court after considering decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 10.08.2018. Said order dated 10.08.2018 was not challenged either by the Association or respondents to said writ petition and as such, the issue with respect to granting seniority from the date when benefit of time bound promotion as per Scheme was granted, has attained finality. In the gradation list prepared in the month of July, 2019 also name of petitioner was placed at Sr. No.3 i.e. above 5 private respondents herein. Surprisingly, the appellants vide order dated 19.09.2019 issued an order that time bound promotion granted to the Executive Engineers as per Scheme of the year 1999 be treated as regular promotion and accordingly published provisional gradation list as on 01.04.2018 and in this provisional gradation list, name of petitioner is placed at Sr. No.12. Petitioner submitted objection to provisional gradation list, however, the decision on objection raised by petitioner was not intimated to him. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WPS No. 2583 of 2021 before this Court and when the respondents therein filed reply to the writ petition, the petitioner came to knowledge that his representation has been rejected and immediately thereafter petitioner amended writ petition to that extent bringing said facts also on record and challenging the order of rejection of representation. 6 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 20.12.2024 allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondents therein / appellants here to promote the petitioner notionally w.e.f. 30.03.2021 on the post of Additional Chief Engineer i.e. the date, when juniors to petitioner were promoted. It is further observed that the petitioner will be entitled for all consequential benefit, as also fixation of pay, except pay of said post for the intervening period. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 therein / appellants herein. 6 7 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the revised seniority list dated 19.09.2019 was prepared strictly in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 10339/2011 and connected matters, which was affirmed in intra- Court appeal and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through dismissal of SLP (C) Diary No. 3367/2019, the said list is lawful and binding. He further submitted that the very same issue regarding the interpretation and application of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS) was under judicial consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of similarly placed employees of the erstwhile MPEB, the lis being identical and involving the same parties or their successors-in-interest, the Supreme Court's in limine dismissal of the SLP confers finality and precludes re-litigation of the issue. He also submitted that the TBPS dated 17.03.1999 was issued and implemented by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB) prior to the reorganization of the State in 2000, and applied uniformly to all eligible engineers irrespective of later state bifurcation, the benefits flowing from its lawful application must extend to all successor entities, including the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and its successor companies. 8 It has been further argued by learned counsel for the appellants that Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB), being aggrieved by the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge directing fixation of 7 seniority based on the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS), had assailed the same before the Hon'ble Division Bench and thereafter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; both forums dismissed the appeals, thereby affirming the legality and correctness of the said judgment. Following such dismissal, the said judgment attained finality and was duly implemented by the MPEB. In view of the identical issue arising in the State of Chhattisgarh, which is a successor entity post-state bifurcation and governed by the same policy-the matter could not have been reopened or re-agitated. Once the dispute stands conclusively settled and implemented in the parent organization, the successor entity is also obligated to implement the same. 9 It has been also argued that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment on the interpretation of the TBPS-after being affirmed by a Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court-attains the status of binding precedent, particularly when the petitioner seeks to challenge a seniority list drawn pursuant to such settled law and for the reason that the petitioner's own case under the TBPS was considered and withheld in a sealed cover due to pending departmental enquiry culminating in punishment, his non- entitlement under the Scheme was a result of his own disqualification and not any arbitrary action by the appellant- Company. The petitioner suppressed material facts, particularly his disqualification from TBPS benefits due to disciplinary 8 proceedings, thereby failing to approach the Hon'ble Court with clean hands, the writ petition suffers from suppression and is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. It has been lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge erroneously concluded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in limine had no binding effect, overlooking the well-settled principle that such dismissal carries weight when preceded by reasoned judgments of lower Courts and involves identical parties and issues. The relief granted by the learned Single Judge amounts to interference with a lawful and judicially approved seniority list without properly appreciating the consistent and uniform implementation of TBPS benefits across the successor organizations of MPEB, the judgment is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 10 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, in which no interference is called for. 11 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 12 From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it is apparent that preparation of gradation list Annexure P/1 is based on order dated 19.04.2018 passed by High 9 Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 10339 of 2011 and connected matters which was affirmed in Writ Appeal and S.L.P. filed against which was dismissed. In the gradation list dated 19.09.2019, name of petitioner has been placed at serial No. 12 whereas in the earlier gradation list prepared by respondent as on 01.04.2018 dated 24.07.2019, his name was placed at serial No. 3 (Annexure P/6). Based on the gradation list (Annexure P/1) dated 19.09.2019, four Superintending Engineers were appointed on promotion on the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P/2). In the said promotion order, all the four persons who were promoted were placed below petitioner in the gradation list dated 24.07.2019. After preparation of gradation list (Annexure P/6) dated 24.07.2019, fresh gradation list was prepared within four months i.e. on 19.09.2019 based on the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, however, while reviewing the gradation list dated 24.07.2019, appellant No. 3 has not taken into consideration decision of this Court in W.P.S. No. 993 of 2008 wherein appellant No.1 is also party respondent to that writ petition. The said writ petition was filed seeking seniority from 07.05.1999, the date on which benefit of time bound promotion scheme was granted to Assistant Engineers and other employees in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh by Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. Appellant No.1 herein and sole respondent in earlier writ petition has opposed the prayer made. Court upon considering rival submissions made by counsel for the 10 respective parties therein as also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point, had dismissed the claim / petition filed by Chhattisgarh Vidyut Mandal Abhiyanta Sangh, Registered Society and Association of Engineers vide its order dated 10.08.2018. In the said order, Court has also considered Clause of T.B.P.S. dated 07.05.1999 that by change of name of post of persons who were benefited with the time bound promotion scheme will not effect their work and will not effect gradation list of Assistant Engineers. 13 It further transpires that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 has observed that the revised list was erroneously based on a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision, which was neither binding on the Chhattisgarh respondent-Company nor did it override the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision, especially since the Supreme Court had dismissed the related SLP in limine without addressing merits. The learned Single Judge further held that the respondent- Company acted arbitrarily and illegally by ignoring its own binding judicial precedent. Although the petitioner had retired on 30.09.2023, the learned Single Judge, instead of quashing the entire seniority list and promotion orders, granted moulded relief by directing the respondents therein to notionally promote the petitioner to the post of Additional Chief Engineer with effect from 30.03.2021- the date his juniors were promoted-and awarded all consequential benefits including pay fixation, except the actual salary for the intervening period. 11 14 Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 15 Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra