1 2025:CGHC:61008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1478 of 2023 Satyanarayan Agharaiya S/o Late Shri Kaliram Aghariya Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Kapan, Akaltara, Tahsil - Akaltara, Police Station - Naila, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Upasana Sewte, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.12.2025 1 The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.16 12:36:25 +0530 2 “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record in respect of decision of DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 19/10/2020 and letter dated 27/07/2020. 10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to open the seal covered envelop. 10.4 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to grant promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the date when juniors to the petitioners have been granted promotion and other consequential benefits. 10.5 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to count seniority of petitioner from initial date of appointment 13/11/1984. 10.6 Any other relief which may Hon'ble Court deem fit in the circumstances.” 2 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Sub-Engineer on 13.11.1984 in the Special Area Development Authority (SADA), Korba, and continuously worked on the said post, initially on an ad-hoc basis till 01.09.1988 and thereafter on regular basis w.e.f. 02.09.1988, without any break. 3 Upon dissolution of SADA, Korba, all its assets, liabilities, officers and employees, including the petitioner, stood merged into Nagar Palik Nigam, Korba. The petitioner has rendered more than 37 years of continuous, unblemished service. However, in the 3 seniority list of Sub-Engineers published on 19.12.1997, the petitioner’s date of appointment was erroneously shown as 02.09.1988 instead of 13.11.1984, resulting in wrongful placement below his juniors. 4 Despite repeated representations pursuant to orders of the Court, the respondents failed to correct the seniority or reckon the petitioner’s ad-hoc service for seniority purposes. The respondents justified inaction on the ground of pendency of an ACB criminal case and a departmental enquiry, keeping the DPC proceedings in sealed cover. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with liberty to challenge the impugned action separately. Notwithstanding several requests, the respondents have not judiciously considered the petitioner’s claim for reckoning his ad-hoc service from the initial date of appointment for seniority, without assigning any cogent or lawful reason. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already superannuated and, as such, the prayer seeking actual promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer has become infructuous. However, it is contended that the petitioner is still entitled to notional promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted, along with all consequential service and monetary benefits, including fixation of pay and revision of pensionary benefits, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 4 6 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of substance and liable to be dismissed at the threshold, as the petitioner has failed to establish any legally enforceable right warranting interference by this Court. It is submitted that vide order dated 27.09.2020 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was informed that though the promotion process was undertaken in the year 2008 as per seniority and service rules, his case was kept in a sealed cover due to pendency of criminal proceedings before the Economic Offences Wing and the competent Court. Even presently, a departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner and, therefore, his case for promotion can be considered only after final outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, his representation seeking benefit of ad-hoc service was rightly rejected. 7 Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was regularised as Sub Engineer only on 02.09.1988 and in view of the circular dated 30.03.1981 issued by the General Administration Department, the period of ad-hoc service cannot be counted for seniority. Hence, the claim for seniority from 13.11.1984 was lawfully rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already retired on 31.01.2021 and all retiral dues have been paid in accordance with law. As such, the impugned orders are legal, valid and within jurisdiction and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5 8 Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.07.2020 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by respondent No.1, seeking correction of seniority w.e.f. 13.11.1984, when the State of M.P. was the competent employer. The claim of seniority for the last 39 years is untenable, especially as the petitioner admits pendency of criminal cases under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that the Tribunal’s order dated 27.06.1995 was neither challenged nor implemented and, by the petitioner’s own showing, action was taken only on 04.06.2017. After about 22 years, reopening or reshuffling of seniority is impermissible. It is further submitted that the writ petition filed on 05.10.2023 challenging orders dated 27.07.2020 and 19.10.2020 is hopelessly barred by delay and laches, as settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long lapse of time. Moreover, the petitioner has already retired from service and no master–servant relationship subsists. On these grounds alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with the writ petiton. 10 Upon thoughtful consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, this Court is of the 6 considered opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11 It is not in dispute that the petitioner was regularised on the post of Sub-Engineer only w.e.f. 02.09.1988 and that his claim for counting ad-hoc service rendered prior thereto for the purpose of seniority is expressly barred by the circular dated 30.03.1981 issued by the General Administration Department, which clearly stipulates that ad-hoc service shall not be reckoned for seniority. The impugned order dated 19.10.2020 has been passed strictly in accordance with the said policy decision and, therefore, cannot be faulted on any count. 12 So far as the grievance relating to non-consideration of promotion is concerned, the record clearly reveals that the petitioner’s case was kept in sealed cover on account of pendency of serious criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, apart from contemplated departmental proceedings. The sealed cover procedure having been adopted in accordance with the applicable service jurisprudence, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in not granting promotion to the petitioner during the relevant period. 13 This Court also finds substance in the objection raised by the respondents regarding gross delay and laches. The petitioner 7 seeks to reopen and re-agitate the issue of seniority after an inordinate delay of several decades. The seniority list in question was published as far back as in the year 1997 and the Tribunal’s order dated 27.06.1995 was neither challenged nor effectively pursued by the petitioner for more than two decades. The writ petition challenging the orders dated 27.07.2020 and 19.10.2020 has been filed only on 05.10.2023, which is clearly beyond the reasonable period prescribed for assailing seniority and promotion matters. It is well-settled that settled seniority cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time, as it would disturb the entire service structure and adversely affect the rights of third parties. 14 Furthermore, the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021 and the relationship of master and servant has ceased to exist. All retiral dues admissible to him under the rules have already been released. In such circumstances, the claim for notional promotion and consequential benefits, founded on an untenable claim of seniority, cannot be sustained. 15 In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order dated 19.10.2020 or the communication dated 27.07.2020. The petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right or infringement thereof so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 8 16 Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh