1 2025:CGHC:54524-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 810 of 2025 Bhuneshwar Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Raikona, Police Station Sarsiwan, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Balodabazar Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.11 11:08:31 +0530 2 10.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State on I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. an application for condonation of delay of 07 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 04.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1068/2017 (Bhuneshwar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh an Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that the writ petitioner would not be entitled for any benefit attached to the promotional post with retrospective effect but considering the fact that juniors to the writ petitioner were promoted in the year 2016 and the name of the writ petitioner was not considered, the respondent authorities were directed to provide notional benefits to the writ petitioner from 16.06.2016. 4. The facts of the present case are that the appellant was initially appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-III vide order dated 30.01.2005 and joined his duties on 01.05.2005 at Government Primary School, Muriyapara under Janpad Panchayat Konta, District South 3 Bastar, Dantewada. His services were regularized on 20.09.2007, and since then, he has been continuously working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) without any adverse remark or departmental proceeding. The appellant, being fully qualified and eligible, was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat). However, despite being initially shown as eligible in the final promotion list, no promotion order was issued in his favour, whereas some similarly placed persons were granted promotion. 5. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities, the appellant preferred W.P.(S) No. 4986/2016, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2016 directing the respondents to consider his case in light of W.A. No. 475/2015. In compliance thereof, the appellant submitted a representation on 04.10.2016, but the respondent authorities failed to act upon it. Instead, the respondent No.2-CEO, Zila Panchayat rejected the appellant’s representation vide order dated 03.01.2017 on the erroneous ground that he did not possess a graduation degree as on 30.06.2013, ignoring the fact that the appellant’s eligibility was already verified earlier. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred W.P.(S) No. 1068/2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.08.2025 granting only notional benefits from 16.06.2016, leading to the present writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, insofar as it denies the 4 appellant the monetary benefits and arrears attached to the promotional post, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to settled principles of law. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others, 2024 (14) SCALE 294, as the said decision pertains to a retired employee who was granted only notional promotion, whereas in the present case, the appellant is still in active service and, therefore, entitled to actual monetary benefits from the date of entitlement i.e., 16.06.2016, the date from which his juniors were promoted. The appellant cannot be penalized for the delay caused solely due to the inaction of the respondents, despite his eligibility and qualification for promotion. Hence, the denial of consequential monetary benefits is unjustified, and the findings of the learned Single Judge are perverse and liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 9. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single 5 Judge reveals that the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the writ petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) in December 2013 after acquiring the requisite qualification of graduation, however, his case was not considered in the DPC held in 2016. It was further observed that the writ petitioner’s representation came to be rejected by order dated 03.01.2017 without assigning sufficient reasons, and that his juniors were considered for promotion while he was unjustifiably left out. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others, 2024 (14) SCALE 294, the learned Single Judge held that though the writ petitioner would not be entitled to the monetary benefits of the promotional post with retrospective effect, considering the promotion of his juniors in 2016, he would be entitled only to notional benefits from 16.06.2016. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 6 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet