1 2025:CGHC:26120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2687 of 2020 1 - Sitaram S/o Shri Gahru Ram Aged About 61 Years 11 Months 28 Days, R/o Village Kotrahi Post Wadrafnagar , District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Department Of Forest , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 470 of 2021 1 - Mangau Ram Baghel S/o Shri Kansingh Baghel Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Singanpur, Post Sarona, Tahsil Narharpur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause-title, as taken from CIS System) For Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Adv. appears on behalf of Ms. Bhavna Pali, Adv. For State/Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Adv. and Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari and Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.06.23 16:59:17 +0530 2 (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 To kindly issue directions to the respondent authorities to immediately issue the order of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Forest Ranger within outer limit of 20 days from the date of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. 10.2 To kindly direct the respondents to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner after issuance of order of promotion to the post of Forest Ranger. 10.3 To kindly make any other order/s that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Both the writ petitions have been filed for alike relief, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this common order. 4. Case of the petitioners, in brief, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as ‘Cup Guard’ on 10.05.1977 & 25.05.1983 respectively, thereafter, they were promoted on the post of ‘Forester’ in the year 2008/2009. Subsequently, they were promoted on the post of ‘Deputy Ranger’ in the year 2014. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking their promotion from the post of ‘Deputy Ranger’ to ‘Ranger’. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were eligible for promotion from the post of of ‘Deputy Ranger’ to ‘Ranger’. Departmental Promotion Committee (for brevity, ‘DPC’) was also convened twice, despite that, they were not promoted on the post of ‘Ranger’ and subsequently, they were retired in the year 2020. He further submits that DPC for promotion from the post of ‘Deputy Ranger’ to ‘Ranger’ was held on 02.01.2020 (Annexure-R/1) and review DPC was held on 24.12.2020 (Annexure-R/2). In both DPCs, the petitioners were found eligible for promotion, despite that, they were not promoted whereas, as per direction issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh vide Annexure-P/3, promotion ought to have been made within 20 working days from the date of DPC. Learned counsel further submits that since both petitioners have been retired, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to grant notional promotion and notional fixation of salary to the petitioners and their pension may be revised accordingly. 6. Respondents have filed their separate return. Learned counsel for both the respondents, referring to their return, would submit that, when review DPC was convened on 24.12.2020, till that time, both petitioners have been superannuated, therefore, their promotion could not have been made, though they were found fit for promotion. As such, notional promotion and relief may be granted accordingly. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Respondent No.1-State has filed record of both the DPC i.e. Annexure-R/1 dated 02.01.2020 and Review DPC dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure-R/2). Perusal of the same shows that, in both DPCs, the 4 petitioners were found fit for promotion, despite that, they were not promoted till their retirement, whereas as per Circular dated 16.02.2015 (Annexure-P/3) issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of CG to all the departments and Collectors, promotion ought to have been made within 20 working days from the date of DPC. Despite all these favourable situations in favour of petitioners, not granting promotion to them shows ulterior motive of the respondent authorities. No reason has been assigned by respondent-State that why petitioners were not promoted despite finding them suitable for promotion, whereas it is evidently clear that both petitioners are very well competent & suitable for grant of promotion from the post of ‘Deputy Ranger’ to ‘Ranger’. 9. In view of above discussion, this Court inclined to allow both the petitions. However, since both the petitioners have retired from the post of Deputy Ranger, therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to pass an appropriate order with regard to notional promotion of both the petitioners from the post of ‘Deputy Ranger’ to the post of ‘Ranger (Forest)’ and their pay/pensionary benefit may be revised in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar