1 2025:CGHC:54729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5138 of 2023 1 - Lal Bahadaur Ghritlahre S/o Late Chandrika Prasad, Aged About 38 Years R/o -I (11), Judicial Residential Complex, Raigarh, Chakradhar Nagar,, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dierector, Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chairman, State Industrial Court, Nagar, Grhdi Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Registrar, State Industrial Court, Nagar, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Presiding Officer, Labor Court Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Bhoi, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 10/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction, thereby directing respondent authorities to conduct review DPC and consider the name of petitioner for the post of Assistanat Grade III and modify the impugned promotion order (Annexure P-3) accordingly. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction, thereby directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation preferred by Petitioner in his favor directing them to apply horizontal reservation in promotion as provided by state government. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Peon in the Labour Court, Raigarh by order dated 15.12.2010 and is presently posted as Daftary. He has diligently discharged all duties assigned to him with utmost dedication. The petitioner was promoted from Peon to Daftary vide order dated 09.11.2022. During his service, the petitioner upgraded his qualifications by completing the Diploma in Computer Applications (D.C.A.) with prior permission of the office, and the said qualification has been duly recorded in his service records. The petitioner, who belongs to the unreserved category, joined service on 20.12.2010 and is a physically disabled person having 40% permanent disability. On 31.03.2022, he submitted a representation enclosing his disability certificate seeking benefits of horizontal promotion available to persons with disabilities under Circular No. F 20-4/2014/Aa.Pra./1-3 dated 27.09.2014, which provides 6% reservation in promotion once during the entire service career. Despite completing 12 years in the same post and becoming eligible for further promotion after completion of 5 years of service as per Notification 3 dated 30.07.2008, his candidature was never considered due to the inaction and negligence of the respondent authorities. Instead of being promoted to Assistant Grade-III (a Class-III post), for which he became eligible much earlier, he was promoted only to the post of Daftary, which is a Class-IV post, reflecting the indifferent conduct of the respondents. As per the aforesaid circular dated 27.09.2014 and the Government Order dated 25.09.2014, employees with 40% or more disability are entitled to 6% reservation in promotion, and a post already held by a disabled person is deemed to be reserved for such category. However, despite fulfilling all eligibility criteria and submitting representations, the petitioner has not been granted any promotional benefit under the said provisions. Furthermore, the petitioner’s representation dated 31.3.2022 remains unanswered, and in a hasty manner, the respondent authorities conducted the DPC considering his name only for the post of Daftary instead of Assistant Grade-III, compelling the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court for appropriate directions so that his legitimate claim for promotion may be duly considered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to consider the petitioner’s repeated representations and in not granting him promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III, despite his merit and lawful entitlement, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, unauthorized, unwarranted, illegal, unjust and discriminatory, and thus squarely violative of the principles enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, it is further submitted that, in view of the settled legal position and the policy of the State of Chhattisgarh providing 6% reservation to employees suffering from disabilities, the petitioner’s claim for promotion ought to have been duly considered in accordance with law, but the continued indifference of the authorities has resulted in grave prejudice and denial of his rightful benefits. It is further submitted that the respondents have also overlooked the binding administrative instructions contained in 4 Circular No. 36012/1/2020-Estt.(Res.-II) dated 17.05.2022, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, which specifically provides for reservation in promotion to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) in accordance with Section 34 of the Act of 2016 and in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka, Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017, decided on 28.09.2021. The learned counsel would also submit that the respondents have disregarded the earlier provisions contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 153, wherein it has been clearly held that reservation for persons with disabilities is not confined merely to initial appointments but extends to promotions as well. Hence, by failing to extend the benefit of reservation in the promotional process, the respondents have acted contrary to the statutory mandate and binding judicial precedents. It is further urged that the concerned respondent, being the competent and final approving authority for the promotion list, is under a statutory obligation to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016, and the above-mentioned DoPT circular, and to consider the name of the petitioner under the reserved category of PwDs before finalizing the list. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the answering respondent categorically, vehemently, and specifically denies all adverse allegations made by the petitioner in the instant petition. It is stated that, as per the order dated 15.12.2010 issued by Respondent No. 3, the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the pay scale of Rs. 4750–7440 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1300, and thereafter, vide order dated 19.11.2022, he was validly promoted to the post of Daftari in Pay Matrix Level-2 (16100–50900), pursuant to which he is presently posted at the Labour Court, Raigarh. The petitioner’s grievance 5 appears to be that he was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III and that the authorities failed to account for his 40% disability and his appointment under the PWD quota, however, such contentions are primarily directed against Respondents No. 3 to 5, who alone are the statutory authorities competent to decide matters relating to his promotion and are therefore required to respond to these allegations. No order or action of the answering respondent is under challenge, and the answering respondent has been impleaded only in a formal capacity, rendering the petition liable to be dismissed. The learned State counsel would also submit that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra) is misplaced, as the said decision does not automatically entitle an employee to promotion unless he satisfies the prescribed eligibility criteria, seniority position, and availability of a vacancy under the reserved quota. The authorities are in the process of final verification of data and have not finalized the promotion list; hence, the apprehension of petitioner is premature and speculative. It is further argued that the respondents have acted bonafide and within the framework of law, following due administrative procedure and ensuring transparency. There has been no arbitrariness or discrimination, and the claim of petitioner that his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 have been violated is without merit. Therefore, the petition is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. The Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), has issued Circular No. 36012/1/2020-Estt.(Res.-II) dated 17.05.2022, in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka [Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017, decided 6 on 28.09.2021]. The said circular explicitly provides that reservation in promotion for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities shall be granted in all Government establishments in accordance with Section 34 of the Act of 2016. It mandates that 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength within Group “C”, from Group “C” to Group “B”, within Group “B” and from Group “B” to the lowest rung of Group “A” shall be reserved for PwBDs. It further clarifies that one per cent each shall be earmarked for blindness/low vision, deaf/hard of hearing, locomotor disability (including cerebral palsy and related categories), and one per cent combined for autism, intellectual disability, and multiple disabilities. Relevant part of the circular is quoted hereunder for ready reference : “Subject: Reservation in promotion to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs). The undersigned is directed to say that the matter regarding reservation in promotion for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) had been under litigation before various courts of law for quite some time, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order, dated 28.9.2021, delivered in the 'Application for Clarification' in the matter of 'Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka', Civil Appeal No.1567/2017, directed the Government to issue instructions on 'Reservation in Promotion', as provided in Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 1.2 Accordingly, the following instructions are issued for grant of reservation in promotion to PwBDs, in the posts and services of the Central Government, as defined under Section 2(r) of the said Act, notified by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPWD). 2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION 2.1 In case of promotion, four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength within Group 'C', from Group 'C' to 7 Group 'B', within Group 'B' and from Group 'B' to the lowest rung of Group 'A' shall be reserved for PwBDs. Reservation in promotion shall be applicable in the cadres in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%. 2.2 Against the posts identified for each disability, one per cent each shall be reserved for PwBDs under clauses (a), (b) and (c), respectively, and one per cent combined, under clauses (d) and (e) below, unless otherwise excluded under the provisions of Para 3 hereinunder: - a. blindness and low vision; b. deaf and hard of hearing; c. locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; d. autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; e. multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf- blindness. 2.3 The authenticity of any certificate, issued by the competent medical authority, may be got verified/re-verified by the appointing authority at the time of appointment.” 7. The purpose of the said circular is to ensure effective implementation of the statutory scheme under the Act of 2016, thereby ensuring equal opportunity and representation of persons with disabilities in public employment and career progression. Hence, while considering promotions and preparation of seniority lists, the authorities are duty-bound to apply the principles embodied in the aforesaid circular and extend the benefit of reservation to eligible employees with benchmark disabilities. 8. In the instant case, it appears that the claim of petitioner under the PwD category has not been examined in light of the aforementioned circular, despite the fact that he has submitted a valid disability certificate issued by a competent medical authority. The respondents are therefore required to 8 reconsider the case of petitioner in accordance with the applicable legal provisions and administrative instructions. 9. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in particular the fact that the petitioner is a physically disabled person, this Court directs the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner, which governs reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities. If upon such consideration, the petitioner is found eligible under the said category, his case shall be considered for inclusion and promotion in a pragmatic and lawful manner, in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the relevant rules. 10. The entire exercise, including verification of the eligibility of petitioner and application of the provisions of the aforesaid circular, shall be completed within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat