1 2025:CGHC:27164 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4517 of 2018  Sunil Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri R K Tiwari Aged About 56 Years Occupation - Assistant Public Relation Officer , Presently Posted At District - Beejapur, R/o Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Relation New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director And Special Secretary, Department Of Public Relation, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Chairman Departmental Promotion Committee, Department Of Public Relation, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan , New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 24-06-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities 2 to issue promotion order of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Deputy Director Public Relation w.e.f. DPC held on 25.07.2012 with all consequential benefits. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to imposed exemplary cost to the respondents concerned/ departments to create unnecessary litigation. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given. 2) Facts of the present case are that initially the petitioner was appointed to the post of Information Assistant-Grade II vide order dated 15.01.1993. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer vide order dated 24.04.2007. The next promotional post of the petitioner was Assistant Director–Public Relations. In the year 2012-13, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened but the name of the petitioner was not considered in the absence of the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the years 2007-08. The petitioner challenged the action on the part of the respondents by filing WPS No. 4811 of 2014 which was disposed of on 15.09.2014 and the following observation was made therein:- “ Two years have elapsed. The petitioner is entitled to just and proper treatment in the matter of consideration for promotion right to be considered for promotion is recognized as one of the fundamental rights of an employee under Article 16 of the Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Mahinder Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 210, The relevant records shall be made available at the earliest as soon as petitioner's case is consider ed for seniority and if found suitable for grant of promotion from the due 3 date.” Pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2014, the petitioner preferred a representation but the same was rejected by the respondent authorities and this fact is evident from the findings recorded in the order passed in CONT No. 54 of 2016. Subsequently, in 2015 and 2017 DPC were convened where the name of the petitioner was considered but he was not found fit for promotion to the next higher post. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WPS No. 5659 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2017 on the basis of the statement and undertaking given by the State counsel appearing therein to consider the name of the petitioner in the next DPC. The petitioner made a representation, but his name was not considered till the filing of this petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Director–Public Relations in the year 2012 itself according to the applicable service rules; his ACR of the years 2007-08 was in circulation and no punishment was imposed prior to 2012. He further submits that in WPS No. 4811 of 2014, it was specifically observed that the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion by the DPC convened in the year 2012 on account of the non-availability of the ACR. He contends that a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for seniority and promotion within a period of four months but in the given time frame, no decision was taken. He further contends that CONT No. 54 of 2016 was filed which was disposed as the claim of petitioner for promotion was rejected. He argues that action on the part of respondent authorities is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner was entitled to just and proper 4 treatment in the matter of consideration for promotion. He further argues that the right to be considered for promotion has been recognized as one of the fundamental rights of an employee under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. He prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion from the year 2012. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He submits that the name of the petitioner was considered in all meetings of the departmental promotion committee for promotion but he was not found fit as a departmental inquiry was pending against him since 2010 and this fact is evident from the order dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure R/1). He further submits that the claim of the petitioner for promotion pursuant to the order passed in WPS No. 4811 of 2014 was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 23.01.2015 and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. He contends that subsequently, the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director–Public Relations by the DPC convened in the year 2020 and he was promoted. He further contends that at present, the petitioner has already retired from services and after retirement, notional benefits cannot be extended according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Government of West Bengal & Ors. Versus Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors.1 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) It appears that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of 1. 2024 SCCOnLine SC 3512 5 Assistant Director–Public Relations in the year 2012 but he was not found fit due to the non-availability of the ACR of the years 2007-08. Petitioner filed WPS No. 4811 of 2014 wherein a direction was issued to the respondents vide order dated 15.09.2014 to consider the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law. The claim of the petitioner was considered by respondent No. 1 and it was rejected vide order dated 23.01.2015 on the ground that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was pending since 03.04.2010 and the order dated 23.01.2015 has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. The petitioner subsequently filed WPS No. 5659 of 2016 in which also the order dated 23.01.2015 was not assailed. In the years 2015 and 2017, the DPC was convened and the name of the petitioner was considered but he was not found suitable on account of the pendency of the departmental inquiry. 7) The reply filed by the State would reveal that the penalty of stoppage of one increment was passed against the petitioner on 11.06.2014 and thereafter vide order dated 22.02.2017 the penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was passed. This reply was filed on 27.01.2020 and these facts have not been rebutted by the petitioner in rejoinder. 8) In view of the above, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that (i) non-consideration of the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director–Public Relations appears to be just and proper and (ii) the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 23.01.2015 and also failed to disclose the facts about the pendency of the departmental inquiry and orders passed thereon. The petitioner has already retired from services and notional benefits cannot be extended 6 to the petitioner from a retrospective date as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (Supra). 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 10) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.06.25 14:54:03 +0530