1 2025:CGHC:7133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7303 of 2018 • Purnanand Churendra S/o Shri Chintaram Churendra Aged About 49 Years, R/o Government Sericulture Weaving Traning Centre, Raigarh, Chhattiagarh, Presently Working As Assistant Grade -II in Sericulture Department, Government of Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Gram Udyog Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Gram Udyog Sanchanalaya, Indrawati Bhawan A Block, 4th Floor, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/02/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the minutes of meeting dated 28/01/2017 to the extent it has recorded finding that petitioner has suffered punishment of two increment with cumulative effect be kindly quashed and the respondent no. 1 & 2 be kindly directed to constitute D.P.C. for promotion after 18/09/2018 immediately and he be given promotion with effect from 28/01/2017. 10.3 That, the respondent be kindly directed to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure A/7) Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 immediately and his case be kindly considered for promotion. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I was rejected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) only on the ground that punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was inflicted. Ms. Ruchi Nagar would further submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III on 13.08.1997 under the respondents and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II on 07.10.2002. She would also submit that the petitioner was within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I and a DPC was convened on 28.01.2017, but the name of the petitioner was not considered. She would contend that there was one post available for the Scheduled Tribes category for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I and the petitioner belongs to that category. She would further contend that the reason assigned by the DPC appears to be incorrect in light of the Circular issued by the State Government dated 27.02.1975. She would also contend that according to the Circular, the life of punishment would be for 02 years as there was a punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with non-cumulative effect. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Ruchi Nagar. He would contend that the punishment of stoppage of 01 increment with non-cumulative effect as well as the period of absence of 01 year 28 3 days was declared non-working days and that part was not considered by the DPC while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. He would further contend that the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. He would also submit that the Circular dated 27.02.1975 is against the interest of the petitioner as the penalty inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority was not considered by the DPC in its entirety. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was rejected only on the ground that he was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of 02 increments with cumulative effect, whereas the order of punishment dated 19.09.2016 would reflect that punishment of stoppage of 02 increments with non-cumulative effect was inflicted on the petitioner, therefore, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent authorities in light of the Circular dated 27.02.1975. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, it is expected that respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid directions(s) / observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti