1 2025:CGHC:10631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No.1529 of 2017 1 - Ramnarayan Sen S/o Late B. L. Sen, Aged About 63 Years R/o Sumit Vihar Colony, Mahadev Ghat Road, Dangania, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Krishna Kumar Dewangan, S/o Late Lakhan Lal Dewangan, Aged About 63 Years R/o House No. 61, National Convent School, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Accountant General, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Indravati Bhawan, Block A, First Floor, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) No.1 to 3 : Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 04.03.2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioners have not questioned any particular order, but the same has been preferred against the inaction on the SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 part of the respondent authorities, in not considering and deciding their representation, for granting them promotion to the post of State Account Service Cadre without any rhyme or reason, though several requests and representations have been made in this regard and, praying for the following reliefs :- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from respondents, pertaining to case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant promotion to consider the case of petitioners for granting proforma promotion, with all consequential benefits. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. From perusal of the averments made in this petition, it was stated that though, the meeting of the DPC was fixed on various occasions, but the Special Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Respondent No.1-Department of Finance, have not attended the meeting, therefore, no progress could be made in this regard. However, it appears from a bare perusal of the Return submitted by the respondents, that the DPC was, in fact, convened on 13.01.2017, where the petitioners were not considered for promotion, as they have already retired from their service prior to that, i.e. on 31.12.2016. It, thus, appears that since the petitioners have been retired from service, therefore, their names could not be considered for promotion in the DPC, which was convened on 13.01.2017. Despite convening of the DPC meeting, the petitioners have deliberately not disclosed the said fact that the DPC was convened in the month of January, 2017, i.e. after their retirement, though, it was incumbent upon them to disclose all the material facts before seeking the 3 discretionary reliefs from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Be that as it may, the promotional order has been issued on 03.03.2017, based upon the said DPC held on 13.01.2017 and the eligible candidates have been given promotion, yet neither they have been impleaded in the instant petition, nor the said promotional order has been questioned. Thus, from the stretch of any imagination, the petitioners are not entitled to claim such a relief in this petition. 4. The petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane