1 2025:CGHC:39788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5930 of 2021 Smt. Usha Koshe W/o Shri Akhilesh Koshe Aged About 54 Years Assistant Grade - 2, Divisional Office Vanijyakar, Circle - 3, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Vanijyik Kar Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vanijyik Kar Adhikari Durg, Circle -3, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vanijyik Kar Adhikari Raipur Circle - 1, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Deputy Commissioner Vanijyik Kar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Bhandari S.S., Assistant Grade - 2, In Office Of Deputy Commissioner, Vanijyik Kar, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/ State For Respondent No. 5 : : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Mr. Sundar Lal Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. R.K. Gomasta, Advocate Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.27 16:18:19 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order the respondents that petitioner may be deemed to have been promoted from the post of Assistant Grade III to Assistant Grade II, one day earlier i.e. 05- 05-2005, as junior respondent no. 5 has been promoted from 06-05-2005, by adding one more serial no. 6-A over serial no. 7 above name of junior respondent no. 5 in gradation list of Assistant Grade II as on 01-04-2015 & so for deletion of petitioner’s name from gradation list of Assistant Grade III as on 01-04-2015 Annexure P-2, will be deleted. Such correction should be made in gradation list of Assistant Grade II and III as on 01-04-2015. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently working as Assistant Grade II under the respondents. In the seniority list of Assistant Grade III, as on 01.04.2015, her name has been shown at serial No. 20, with her date of first appointment recorded as 05.09.1988. It is submitted that the name of respondent No. 5, whose date of first appointment is shown as 10.01.1994, i.e., more than 5 years after the petitioner’s appointment, is reflected in the seniority list of Assistant Grade II at serial No. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner, being senior, ought to have been promoted one day earlier than respondent No. 5 i.e., on 3 05.05.2005, with her name placed at serial No. 6-A above respondent No. 5 in the gradation list. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in C.L. Chandraker & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2010 (3) CGLJ 344, wherein it has been held that till the service of an employee is not absorbed in another office or department upon obtaining option, the seniority and promotion of the employee cannot be adversely affected. 3. It is further argued that in case of wrongful promotion of juniors before their seniors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab Electricity Board v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, 1987 (1) MPWN 228, held that the senior should be deemed to have been promoted from the date the junior was promoted. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to deemed promotion from 05.05.2005 with all consequential benefits. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the claim of the petitioner is misconceived as petitioner was transferred on her own request vide order dated 07.07.2007 from the office of Commercial Tax Officer, Raipur Circle-1 to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Durg Division. It is submitted that Clause 2 of the said order clearly stipulates that since the seniority of clerks and peons is determined division-wise, the seniority of employees transferred to a new division would be determined at the lowest in the said division. Therefore, the petitioner lost her seniority on account of her own request transfer and consequently, respondent No. 5 was rightly promoted earlier. It is submitted that the order dated 17.08.2017, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Durg Division, is just and proper. He relies upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & 4 Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, wherein it has been held that promotion takes effect only from the date it is actually granted, not retrospectively from the date when a vacancy arose. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6. In the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the earlier precedents, held that promotion takes effect from the date it is granted, not from the date when a vacancy arises or the post is created. There is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, but no fundamental right to promotion itself. Further, once an employee retires, the claim for promotion or consequential monetary benefits cannot be entertained. It has further been held that promotion cannot be retrospectively conferred after retirement, except where rules specifically permit or where promotions are delayed illegally during service tenure. 7. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5, admittedly junior to her, was promoted on 06.05.2005, whereas she, being senior, was not considered. However, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had been transferred on her own request vide order dated 07.07.2007, wherein it was specifically mentioned that her seniority in the new division would be fixed at the bottom. This transfer condition, accepted by the petitioner, disentitles her from claiming seniority benefits with respect to respondent No. 5. thus, the judgments relied by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case. 8. Even otherwise, the petitioner is seeking a retrospective deemed promotion from 05.05.2005, i.e., nearly 12 years before filing the petition in 2017, and after having since retired from service. The claim is thus directly hit by the law laid down in matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi 5 (supra) as well as by settled precedents such as State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, and Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. v. State of U.P., (2006) 10 SCC 346, which categorically hold that retrospective promotions with monetary implications after retirement are impermissible. 9. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE vatti