-1- 2025:CGHC:33373 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 489 of 2021 Ramkumar Mandlesh S/o Late Sukhlal Aged About 60 Years Working As Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station, Dondi, District- Balod (C.G.), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal, Secretary Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atala Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2- Director General of Police Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Superintendent of Police, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the respondent no-2 give promotion to the petitioner from the date his juniors namely Vijay Singh Netam and Ukharam Markandey were Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- granted promotion with all consequential benefits. / 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was holding the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and was posted at Police Station Dondi, District Balod. He would contend that vide order dated 30.03.2020, some of the juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector, but the claim of the petitioner was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), and no reasons were assigned for such non-consideration. He would pray that a direction be issued to the respondents. He would further submit that at the relevant point of time, the age of the petitioner was 60 years and he has already retired from service. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that a departmental enquiry was conducted and a penalty of reduction of pay equivalent to one increment for one year without cumulative effect was imposed vide order dated 31.03.2017. It is submitted that as per SOP No. 25/2021 dated 06.08.2021, the validity of such penalty remains effective for five years. She would submit that as the petitioner has already retired from service, he cannot be granted the benefit of retrospective promotion; thus, he would pray that the instant writ petition may be dismissed. 4) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5) From a perusal of Annexure P/4 dated 08.04.2019, it is apparent that the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed in WPS No. -3- 567 of 2019 was rejected by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Recruitment/Selection). The petitioner has not challenged the said order. 6) In the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the Inspector General of Police (Recruitment/Selection), it has been stated that since the petitioner was penalized with a reduction of pay equivalent to one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 10.04.2017, he was not found fit for promotion and, therefore, his name was not considered. 7) SOP No. 54/2021 dated 06.08.2021, states that if an employee has been penalized, then for a period of five years from the date of imposition of penalty, his name can not be considered for promotion. 8) Taking into consideration the fact that the penalty was imposed vide order dated 10.04.2017 and the subsequent representation of the petitioner was rejected, which he has not challenged, and further considering that the petitioner has since retired from service, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim