1 2025:CGHC:42623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3100 of 2020 1 - Neelmani Dewangan S/o Late Shri Devnath Dewangan Aged About 57 Years Incharge Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation, Raipur R/o 292, Laxmi Nagar, Ring Road No. 01, Behind Vidhya Niketan School, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Co Operative Marketing Federation Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation, Through The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, C. B. D. Sector 21, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation, Through The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, C. B. D. Sector 21, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Ashish Surana, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs : (i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the subject matter of the instant case including the records of the Departmental Promotion Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.08.26 11:43:11 +0530 2 Committee meeting dated 10.01.2013. (ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents to convene the review Department Promotion Committee meeting of the original DPC held on 10.01.2013 for promotion from the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) to Assistant Engineer (Civil) and consider the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from 10.01.2013 alongwith all consequential benefits including seniority, pay and arrears of pay with interest from 2013 etc. (iii) Any other order/writ/direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed. (iv) Cost of petition be also awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 03.11.1987 as Sub Engineer (Civil) on Adhoc basis in the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited and the petitioner’s services were regularized on the same post in the year 1995. After the reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner’s services were allocated to the respondents. It is further averred that, for promotion from the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) (Class 3 post) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)(Class 2 post), meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (henceforth, referred to as ‘DPC’) was convened on 10-1-2013, in which petitioner’s name was within the zone of consideration and he fulfilled all criteria for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). For promotion, ACRs of last 5 years were to be considered, but since, 3 years’ ACRs out of last 5 years’ ACRs were not available, it 3 was resolved by the DPC vide Annexure P-1 dated 10-1-2013 that, on receiving the ACRs, the meeting of the DPC will be held on circulation, but thereafter review meeting of DPC of the original DPC meeting has not been held after 10-1-2013. When petitioner came to know that respondents have received petitioner’s ACR for 3 years as required, he made several requests vide Annexure P-2 for conducting review DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, but the same has not been done. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide order (Annexure P-4) dated 20-3-2017. It has been further averred that, in order to deprive petitioner from promotion, a disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against him by issuing charge sheet dated 13-6-2013, in which, vide order (Annexure P-5), order of ‘Reprimand’ (Parininda) has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying for direction to the respondents to convene review DPC of the original DPC held on 10-1-2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per Chhattisgarh Cooperative Marketing Federation Service Rules, the petitioner was entitled to get promotion from the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the month of January, 2013, but the DPC held on 10-1-2013 did not consider petitioner for promotion, because 3 years’ ACR out of last 5 years’ ACRs were not available. Petitioner has been promoted in the year 2017, but since he was entitled to get promotion from the year 2013, but only with malafide 4 intention to deprive the petitioner from promotion, charge sheet was served on 13-6-2013 to him i.e. after DPC (Annexure P-1). Hence, learned counsel submitted that, respondents may be directed to convene review DPC as on 10-1-2023 to consider the case of promotion of petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). 4. The respondents have filed reply. Referring to their reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, because of some financial irregularities committed by the petitioner, notices were served to him, which were responded by him. Ultimately, Departmental Enquiry was instituted against him and charge sheet was served on him on 13-6-2013. In that Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was held guilty and penalty of ‘Reprimand’ (Parininda’) was imposed upon him. Learned counsel further submits that, since complete ACRs of 5 years of the petitioner were not available, in the DPC meeting held on 10-1-2013, case of promotion of petitioner could not be considered and further, since Departmental Enquiry was pending against him, he cannot claim for promotion from January, 2013, as ultimately, he has been penalized in that Departmental Enquiry. He further submits that, if the petitioner was having any grievance with regard to his promotion, then he was having alternative remedy of raising dispute before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, but he never raised such dispute before it and has directly filed instant writ petition, that too, after getting promotion in the year 2017. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. In reply to above contention made by learned counsel for the 5 respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the Departmental Enquiry, penalty of ‘Reprimand’ (Parininda) was inflicted upon the petitioner, which could not be a ground to deprive him from promotion. Further, by filing instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of review DPC by issuing a writ of mandamus, which cannot be granted by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the case. 7. As per Annexure P-1 dated 10-1-2013, DPC was convened on 10-1- 2013 for promotion of Sub Engineer (Civil) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). For aforesaid purpose, ACRs of the year 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 i.e. of 5 years were under consideration, but since ACRs of 3 years out of 5 years were not available, hence no fruitful order could be passed in the DPC. 8. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 20-3-2017. He is seeking aforesaid promotion from back date i.e. from January, 2013, when he was entitled for promotion. But as per Annexure P-5 dated 17-7-2015, because of misconduct committed by the petitioner in the year 2002-2003, charge sheet was served to him on 13-6-2013, and in the Departmental Enquiry vide Annexure P-5 dated 17-7-2015, petitioner has been found guilty of misconduct and has been inflicted penalty of ‘Reprimand’ (Parininda). Though, penalty of ‘Raprimand’ (Parininda) does not debar an employee from promotion, but this punishment was imposed in the 6 year 2015, therefore, it cannot be held at this stage that, petitioner was eligible for promotion in the year 2013, because what punishment would be imposed, was determined only in the year 2015. 9. Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (henceforth referred to as ‘Act of 1960’) deals about the Registrar’s power to determine conditions of employment in societies and about a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, which reads thus :- “55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies (1) The Registrar, may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf. (2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees: Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned : 7 Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded.” 10. In the instant case, if the petitioner was having grievance of getting promotion late i.e. in the year 2017, then in view of aforesaid provision of Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960, he ought to have raised dispute before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, but he did not do so, rather after getting promotion in the year 2017, he filed instant petition in the year 2000. No sufficient reason has been assigned by the petitioner for not exhausting alternative remedy available to him. He has also not assigned any sufficient reason as to why the petition was not filed in the year 2013 or immediately thereafter. 11. In view of above discussion, I do not find any good ground to allow instant writ petition. The same being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, at admission stage. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak