1 2025:CGHC:33893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 232 of 2021 * - Uttam Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late I. C. Shrivastava Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Sub Engineer (Civil), Water Resource Division Raigarh, District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resource, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Police Station- Rakhi, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer-In Chief Water Resource Department, Sector 19, Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Office Of Engineer In Chief, Water Resource Department, Sector 19, Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - R. K. Banjare Assistant Engineer, Presently Posted In Water Resource Department, Kharang Division, District- Bilaspur (Cg), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3/State For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer None Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the orders dated 21.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) and 25.10.2019 (Annexure P-17), issued Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.29 11:34:16 +0530 2 by the State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur whereby the representation of the petitioner for consideration of his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, with effect from the date of his joining i.e. 03.04.2007 in the State of Chhattisgarh has been rejected. 2. Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that vide recommendation dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure P-7), the Superintending Engineer (Administration) Water Resources Department has made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from the date of his joining i.e. 03.04.2007 in the State of Chhattisgarh. He would contend that one Brijraj Pal Jadon, who is similarly placed employee and joined the State of Chhattisgarh on 23.05.2008, has been granted promotion from the date of his joining i.e. 23.05.2008 by the same Department, as such, the petitioner claims parity with the said employee- Brijraj Pal Jadon. 3. Mr. Hari Agrawal would further submit that in similar circumstances a writ appeal i.e. W.A. No. 108 of 2016 was preferred by one Sanjay Pathak before the Division Bench of this Court and in paragraph 12, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed as under:- '12. The Learned Single Judge also did not consider the fact that though the Writ Petitioner joined services in the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2007, he did not file any representation against his juniors till he was promoted in the year 2010. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the Writ Petitioner could not have been promoted in the State of Chhattisgarh till he actually joined in the State of Chhattisgarh on 13.08.2007. Therefore, the only benefit that can be given to the Writ Petitioner D.S. Dandotia (Respondent No. 6 herein) is that the DPC shall consider him for promotion with effect from 3 13.8.2007, when he joined in the State of Chhattisgarh. The order of the Learned Single Judge shall stand modified to that extent.' Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as the petitioner has joined in the State of Chhattgisgarh on 03.04.2007, therefore, same order may be passed in the present case. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that a review DPC was held on 19.08.2019, but petitioner was not found suitable for promotion. She would further contend that vide order dated 25.10.2019, petitioner’s representation has been rejected. She would argue that the petitioner had pursued part-time degree of B.E. in the year 2004 and thus became eligible for consideration for promotion after completion of 08 years of service. Since Brijraj Pal Jadon had done B.E. Degree in the year 1983-84, therefore, he was considered senior to the petitioner. She would contend that the petitioner is claiming parity with one Brijraj Pal Jadon, but the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of cancellation of promotion of said Brijpal Singh Jadon, being aggrieved by which instant petition has been filed seeking proforma promotion. 5. Ms. Shailja Shukla would further submit that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer may be considered from the date of his joining in the State of Chhattisgarh i.e. 03.04.2007 and she does not dispute the finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Patthak vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. in W.A. No. 108 of 2016 dated 17.10.2016 and particularly, the observation made by the Division Bench in paragraph 12. It is further 4 submitted that if the petitioner's case for promotion is considered, same may be granted only in proforma manner and no actual monetary benefits would be payable to him 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of, in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 108 of 2016 (Sanjay Pathak vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.) in paragraph 12, the State Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer considering his seniority from the date of his joining. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), this writ petition is disposed of. 9. The respondents are directed to consider the issue involved in this case within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if at all the petitioner is found entitled for promotion, the petitioner would only be entitled for proforma benefit of promotion and all actual benefits would be prospective. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti