1 2025:CGHC:60373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5283 of 2023 1 - Rakesh Sharma S/o Late M.L. Sharma, Aged About 65 Years R/o B- 224, Agyey Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (C.I.D.C.) Shashtri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Petitioner :- Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate appears along with Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 5:- Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 11.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking consideration of his case for absorption in the post of Chief Municipal Officer with all consequential service and financial benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s case for absorption has been wrongfully ignored despite repeated policy decisions and circulars of the State Government mandating absorption of employees transferred from the erstwhile MPSRTC to various departments in Chhattisgarh. It is pointed out that the Petitioner was not sent on deputation, but was permanently placed under the Urban Administration and Development Department, where his service is being continuously maintained, and therefore the Respondents are under a legal obligation to absorb him in terms of government instructions dated 10.12.2007, 18.09.2013, 22.03.2016 and subsequent resolutions. Counsel submits that while numerous similarly situated employees have already been absorbed and granted all consequential and retiral benefits, the Petitioner alone has been singled out and deprived of 3 the same without any justification, rendering the inaction of the authorities discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despite multiple resolutions and recommendations over the years, and despite the Petitioner’s uninterrupted service since 1983, the Respondents have neither considered the documents furnished by him nor appreciated the distinction between rehabilitation and absorption. It is argued that the Respondents have misinterpreted the policy decision of the State, failed to discharge their statutory and administrative duties, and acted with oblique motive, thereby causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner who now faces denial of retiral and consequential benefits. Hence, the impugned decision deserves to be quashed and the Petitioner’s absorption directed in the interest of justice. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was duly absorbed in the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC) in accordance with the rehabilitation policies/circulars issued on 13.12.2002, 06.02.2003 and 23.12.2004, which were framed to accommodate the employees of the erstwhile MPSRTC after its abolition pursuant to the Government of India notification dated 27.07.2002. It is further submitted that the subsequent posting of the petitioner in 2004 to the Urban Administration and Development Department was purely on deputation and did not confer upon him any right of absorption in the State Government, particularly when the said policies specifically restrict absorption of CIDC employees only to 4 Corporations, Boards and Federations, and exclude absorption in the State Government departments. It is stated that the petitioner also lacks the requisite eligibility for the post of Chief Municipal Officer, and therefore, no legal or vested right accrues to him for his absorption in the Urban Administration and Development Department contrary to the applicable circulars and statutory provisions. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the petitioner has already retired on 30.06.2020 from the post he was holding. In view of this, no relief can be granted to the petitioner post retirement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner was an employee of MPSRTC which was abolished for the State of Chhattisgarh. The services fo the petitioner was absorbed with CIDC and the petitioner was posted as Chief Municipal Officer. Accordingly as per the policy/ circulars dated 13.12.2002, 06.02.2003 and 23.12.2004 the services of the employees of the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation can only be absorbed with the Corporation, Board and Federation and not with the State Government. Further perusal of the petition shows that the petitioner lacks the eligibility for the post of Chief Municipal Officer and, therefore, his services cannot be absorbed in the 5 Urban Administration and Development Department as per the circular issued by the State Government regarding the absorption of employees of the erstwhile MPSRTC and presence CIDC. Moreover, the petitioner has already retired from service on 30.06.2020, though he is now seeking an order of absorption. Time and again, the Courts have held that service benefits such as absorption cannot be granted after an employee has retired. Once an employee superannuates, the employer–employee relationship comes to an end, and the authority generally ceases to have jurisdiction over the individual unless a specific service rule provides otherwise. 7. This necessarily means that, as a general rule, no new service orders such as absorption, promotion, or initiation of disciplinary proceedings can be issued after the date of superannuation. A retired employee cannot claim any vested right to seek fresh service benefits once he has already superannuated. Hence, for an order of absorption to be legally valid, it must be processed and issued while the employee is still in active service. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. and others vs. Giriraj Prasad Sharma arising out of SLP(C) No. 18460-18461/2023 has held that no employee can claim promotion after retirement, as promotion becomes effective not from the date of vacancy but only from the date the promotion 6 order is issued and duties are assumed, and consequently, no right to seek post-retirement promotion accrues. 9. For any absorption to be valid, it must be effected strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and during the period when such policy remains operative, and not merely on the basis of an individual’s personal request. Claims for absorption or service benefits raised after retirement are ordinarily not maintainable, as absorption must occur while the employee is in active service; post-retirement claims cause prejudice to the administration and are impermissible unless expressly supported by statutory rules or by a Court order issued during service tenure. An employee whose absorption or promotion was neither finalized nor implemented before superannuation cannot seek retrospective benefits or notional promotion thereafter. 10. In the present case, the petition was filed on 04.07.2023, after three years to the petitioner’s retirement on 30.06.2020. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the Urban Administration Department as Chief Administrative Officer, Durg, purely under a policy decision of the State Government; however, the rehabilitation policies dated 13.12.2002, 06.02.2003 and 23.12.2004 categorically restrict absorption of erstwhile MPSRTC employees to Corporations, Boards and Federations, and do not permit absorption in State Government departments. The petitioner was also ineligible for absorption to the post of Chief 7 Municipal Officer. In view of the clear policy framework and the absence of any right to seek post-retirement absorption, the petitioner’s claim is wholly untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the various dictums laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the prayer of the petitioner for absorption cannot be allowed. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, and the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha