1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 05.02.2026 Order passed on : 13.02.2026 WPS No. 9471 of 2023 1 - Shrawan Kumar Singh S/o Late Shivcharan Singh Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Assistant Grade- I I I, Under The Office Of Deputy Director Agriculture Baikunthpur District- Korea C.G. R/o Village- Gopalpur Ward No. 1, Post- Ps-Tahsil Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Agriculture Block- I I, Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director Agriculture Surguja Division Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director Agriculture Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)] C.A.V. Order 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-3), whereby respondent No. 3, acting suo motu, has cancelled his earlier order dated 08.09.2017 granting the petitioner the benefit of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment and has further directed recovery of the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents in denying him promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade- II. It is submitted that despite the petitioner having submitted several representations ventilating his grievance, the respondents have failed to take any decision thereon, thereby perpetuating discrimination and causing continuing prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 The Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-3) issued by the office of respondent no. 3.” 3 2. Facts of the case, as canvased are that, the petitioner was initially appointed on compassionate grounds to the post of Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 28.02.2014 issued by the competent authority. In pursuance of the said appointment order, the petitioner duly joined service on 13.03.2014 and has been continuously discharging his duties thereafter. Prior to joining on the said post, the petitioner was already possessing a valid certificate of computer training course, which was submitted before respondent No. 3. Taking note of the petitioner’s eligibility and qualification, respondent No. 3 sanctioned the benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 13.03.2014, vide order dated 08.09.2017. The said order granting regular pay scale remained in force and was acted upon by the respondents. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, respondent No. 3, without issuing any show-cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, suo motu cancelled his earlier order dated 08.09.2017 vide order dated 13.05.2019 and further directed recovery of the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner. The said action was taken in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, the said cancellation and recovery order has not been properly communicated to the petitioner till date. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued the seniority gradation list of Assistant Grade-III as on 01.04.2020 vide order dated 26.06.2020, wherein 4 the petitioner’s name was duly reflected at Serial No. 21, thereby acknowledging his continuous service and seniority position. Subsequent to issuance of the said gradation list, respondent No. 3, vide order dated 01.09.2020, directed respondent No. 4 to furnish the preceding five years’ Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), details of immovable property and no-dues certificates of eligible employees for the purpose of considering them for further promotion. In the said order, the name of the petitioner was specifically mentioned at Serial No. 26, clearly indicating that the petitioner was within the zone of consideration for promotion. Despite the above, when the promotion order dated 29.05.2021 was issued by the office of respondent No. 2 for promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade-II, the petitioner’s name was arbitrarily omitted, whereas several juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion. The exclusion of the petitioner, without assigning any reason, is manifestly illegal and discriminatory. During the relevant period, the petitioner successfully cleared the departmental typing examination conducted by the competent committee. Consequent thereto, respondent No. 4, vide order dated 23.09.2021, sanctioned typing allowance of Rs. 500/- per month in favour of the petitioner, which further establishes his eligibility and satisfactory service record. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 again issued a seniority gradation list of Assistant Grade-III as on 01.04.2021 vide order dated 5 08.09.2022, wherein the petitioner’s name found place at Serial No. 28, thereby once again recognizing his service status and seniority. However, in a wholly arbitrary manner, the seniority gradation list as on 01.04.2022 issued on 13.06.2023 by respondent No. 3 does not contain the name of the petitioner at all, without assigning any reason or issuing any prior notice to him. The unexplained deletion of the petitioner’s name from the gradation list is ex facie illegal and unjustified. On the basis of the said gradation list as on 01.04.2022, respondent No. 3, vide order dated 14.08.2023, again directed respondent No. 4 to furnish the preceding five years’ ACRs, immovable property details and no- dues certificates of employees for further promotion. The petitioner, being aggrieved by his continuous exclusion and deletion from the gradation list and denial of promotion, submitted several objections and representations to the respondent authorities and made repeated correspondence requesting consideration of his case for promotion from Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade-II. However, despite receipt of such representations, the respondents have failed to take any decision or pass any reasoned order till date. In these circumstances, the entire act and conduct of the respondents in cancelling the benefit of regular pay scale, deleting the petitioner’s name from the gradation list, and not considering him for promotion despite his eligibility, seniority and clean service record, are arbitrary, illegal, 6 mala fide and contrary to the applicable rules and settled principles of law, giving rise to the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire act and conduct of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 3, is manifestly arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by non-application of mind, being in clear violation of the settled principles of administrative law and the fundamental tenets of natural justice. The impugned actions demonstrate an unreasonable exercise of power, causing serious civil consequences to the petitioner without affording him any opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the impugned actions of the respondents are in direct contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The petitioner, though similarly situated and otherwise eligible, has been subjected to hostile discrimination, while his juniors have been conferred benefits of promotion and service advantages. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted and undisputed fact that prior to joining the post of Assistant Grade-III, the petitioner possessed the requisite computer training certificate, which was duly placed on record. Upon due verification of his eligibility, respondent No. 3 granted the petitioner the benefit of regular pay scale with effect from 13.03.2014 vide order dated 08.09.2017. However, in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice, the said benefit was 7 withdrawn suo motu by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 13.05.2019, without issuance of any show-cause notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without assigning any cogent reasons, coupled with a direction for recovery of the alleged excess payment, which itself was never properly communicated to the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3, vide order dated 01.09.2020, directed respondent No. 4 to furnish the preceding five years’ ACRs, immovable property details and no-dues certificates of eligible employees for the purpose of further promotion, wherein the name of the petitioner was specifically included, thereby acknowledging his eligibility and consideration for promotion. Despite the same, when the promotion order dated 29.05.2021 was issued, the petitioner’s name was arbitrarily omitted, whereas several juniors to the petitioner were promoted from Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade-II, without assigning any justification for such exclusion. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s name again found place in the seniority gradation list of Assistant Grade-III as on 01.04.2021, issued vide order dated 08.09.2022, wherein he was placed at Serial No. 28. However, in a wholly arbitrary and unexplained manner, the petitioner’s name was deleted from the subsequent gradation list as on 01.04.2022 issued on 13.06.2023, without issuing any notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing, and without recording any 8 reasons, rendering the action ex facie illegal. It is submitted that despite being senior and fully eligible, the petitioner has been deliberately deprived of promotion, whereas his juniors have been granted such benefit, clearly indicating mala fide intent and colourable exercise of power on the part of respondent No. 3. The denial of promotion to the petitioner, without any valid reason, amounts to arbitrary discrimination and unfair treatment. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner has consistently raised objections and made repeated representations and correspondence before the respondent authorities, requesting consideration of his case for promotion and redressal of his grievances. However, the respondents have failed to take any action or pass any reasoned order thereon till date, thereby compounding the illegality and causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the impugned actions of the respondents are unsustainable in law. 4. Learned State counsel, at the very outset, submits that the answering respondents categorically, vehemently and specifically deny all adverse allegations, insinuations and averments made by the petitioner against the respondents/State in the instant writ petition. It is submitted that the petition is misconceived, devoid of merit and substance, and has been filed by suppressing material facts, and therefore does not warrant any interference by this 9 Court. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 28.02.2014 issued by the Joint Director, Agriculture, Division Surguja, Ambikapur, and was posted in the office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Balrampur, District Balrampur. The said appointment was subject to specific conditions, namely that the petitioner was required to pass Hindi Typing/Computer from a recognized institution within a period of two years from the date of appointment, and till fulfillment of the said condition, he was entitled only to the lower pay scale attached to the post. It was further stipulated that only after passing the requisite Hindi Typing/Computer qualification would the petitioner be placed on probation and his seniority be determined in accordance with rules. Learned State counsel further submits that respondent No. 3, on the basis of a computer training certificate issued by UICT Computer, Surguja, erroneously passed an order dated 08.09.2017 granting the petitioner regular pay scale with effect from 13.03.2014. However, the said order was contrary to the circular dated 14.06.2013 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which governs compassionate appointments. As per Clause 10(3) of the said circular, except for a widow of the deceased employee, no exemption is permissible in the prescribed educational qualifications for the post of Assistant 10 Grade-III, and other dependents must necessarily pass Hindi Typing with 5000 depressions on computer from a recognized institution. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the said mandatory requirement and the certificate relied upon was not from a recognized institution for the prescribed qualification, the order dated 08.09.2017 was rightly cancelled vide order dated 13.05.2019. The said cancellation was thus legal, justified and in strict conformity with the governing policy. It is further submitted that since the petitioner had not passed the requisite Hindi Typing/Computer qualification and his services were not regularized at the relevant point of time, his case was rightly not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade- II. Therefore, the allegation of discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is wholly misconceived, vague and baseless. Learned State counsel also submits that the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.05.2019 only in the year 2023, i.e. after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than four years. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam & Another v. Jaswant Singh & Another, (2006) 11 SCC 464 and Gulam Rasul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2009) 15 SCC, wherein it has been categorically held that a litigant who sleeps over his rights is not 11 entitled to discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction, and stale claims cannot be revived after a long lapse of time. It is further submitted that after the petitioner cleared the requisite skill/typing test organized by the respondent department, he was granted typing allowance of Rs. 500/- per month vide order dated 23.09.2021. Subsequently, upon clearing the typing skill test conducted by the Government Industrial Training Institute, Ambikapur on 25.08.2024, the probation of the petitioner was ended vide order dated 16.01.2026 with effect from 25.08.2024. Thereafter, his name has been duly included in the gradation list as on 01.04.2025 for the post of Assistant Grade-III. Thus, the petitioner is now being treated strictly in accordance with law and applicable rules. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s claim for promotion had earlier been rejected on 12.09.2023 solely on the ground that his probation had not ended at the relevant point of time. The said decision was legal, reasoned and in consonance with service jurisprudence. There is no arbitrariness, mala fide or illegality in the action of the respondents. Lastly, learned State counsel submits that the grounds raised by the petitioner are untenable and not available to him in law, in view of the factual and legal position explained hereinabove. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed with costs. In view of the 12 aforesaid submissions, the answering respondents pray that the instant writ petition be dismissed. 5. The present writ petition calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-3), whereby respondent No. 3, acting suo motu, cancelled the earlier order dated 08.09.2017 granting the petitioner regular pay scale from the date of his initial appointment and further directed recovery of the alleged excess payment. The petitioner has also assailed the consequential denial of promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade-II, alleging arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. From perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds to the post of Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 28.02.2014 and joined service on 13.03.2014. The appointment order clearly stipulated that the appointee was required to acquire Hindi Typing / Computer knowledge / examination / diploma within a period of two years or earlier, and till fulfillment of the said condition, regular pay scale was not to be granted. The language employed in the appointment order makes it manifest that the condition was framed in the alternative, namely, Hindi Typing or Computer qualification. The relevant condition, as stipulated in the 13 appointment order, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: " नियुनि के शቔኔ :- 1) छ्ቈीसगढ़ शास, सामान्य ्ቚशास निभाग, मं्ቔालय, रायपुर के परिरप्ቔ ्ቅमांक/एफ-7- 4/2002/1-3/ नि ांक 17.02.2004 की कं डि#का- 3 के अुसार सहायक ्ቇे#-3 के प पर काय'भार ्ቇहण करे के नि ांक से मान्यቔኔा ्ቚा्቎ संस्था से निहन् ी मु्ቖलेख/ कम्प्यूटर का ्ሺा / परी्ቌा / डि#प्लोमा संबंधी अह'ቔኔा ्ቚमाण प्ቔ 02 ्ቧ' की कालाडिध में या इसके पू' जो भी पहले हो उ्ቈीण' करा होगा। जब ቔኔक े निहन् ी मु्ቖलेख एं कम्प्यूटर का ्ሺा / परी्ቌा / डि#प्लोमा संबंधी अह'ቔኔा परी्ቌा उ्ቈीण' हीं करेंगे ቔኔब ቔኔक उन्हें सहायक ्ቇे#-3 के ेቔኔमा का निम्ቔኔम ेቔኔ ቔኔथा भ्ቈे ्ቚा्቎ होगें। 2) यनि े उपयु निहन् ी मु्ቖलेख परी्ቌा एं कम्प्यूटर का ्ሺा / परी्ቌा / डि#प्लोमा संबंधी परी्ቌा निधा'रिरቔኔ अधी में उ्ቈीण' कर लेे के ूसरे नि  से सहायक ्ቇे#-3 के प पर ो ्ቧ' की परिरी्ቌा पर नियु निकया जाेगा साथ ही इकी रिर्቗ቔኔा नियनिमቔኔ ेቔኔमा में नियुनि के नि ांक से निधा'रिरቔኔ की जाेगी।" 7. It is further evident from the record that prior to his appointment, the petitioner had already obtained a computer diploma/certificate from a recognized university on 30.06.2013, which was duly placed before the respondent authorities. Taking into consideration the said qualification and after due verification, 14 respondent No. 3 passed a conscious and reasoned order dated 08.09.2017 granting the petitioner regular pay scale with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 13.03.2014. The said order was acted upon and remained operative for a considerable period. Once the competent authority, after examining the eligibility and qualification of the petitioner, found him suitable and granted the benefit of regular pay scale, the subsequent cancellation of the said benefit vide order dated 13.05.2019 is ex facie arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The impugned cancellation proceeds on the premise that the petitioner had not cleared the Hindi typing examination, ignoring the admitted position that the appointment condition itself permitted compliance either through Hindi typing or computer qualification. The respondents, having accepted the computer certificate as sufficient compliance in the year 2017, are estopped from reopening the issue on a hyper-technical ground at a later stage. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner was found eligible on the basis of the computer certificate and regular pay scale was granted after due application of mind, the same could not have been withdrawn subsequently on the ground that the petitioner had not passed Hindi typing examination. Such an action amounts to review of a concluded issue without any statutory authority and is hit by the principles of fairness and certainty in administrative decision-making. Additionally, the 15 impugned order dated 13.05.2019 has been passed without issuance of any show-cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, despite the fact that the order entails serious civil consequences, including recovery of alleged excess payment. The action is thus in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained on this ground alone. 9. Insofar as the denial of promotion is concerned, the record reveals that the petitioner’s name consistently appeared in the seniority/gradation lists issued from time to time and he was even placed within the zone of consideration for promotion, as evident from the communication dated 01.09.2020 seeking ACRs and other details. The subsequent omission of the petitioner’s name and denial of promotion, while granting promotion to juniors, is a direct consequence of the illegal cancellation of regular pay scale and alleged non-regularization, which itself has been found to be unsustainable. Once the cancellation order dated 13.05.2019 is held to be illegal, the consequential actions flowing therefrom, including denial of consideration for promotion and deletion of the petitioner’s name from gradation lists, cannot survive. The respondents are duty-bound to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion in accordance with law, on the basis of his seniority and eligibility, without being influenced by the quashed order. 16 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-3), cancelling the earlier order dated 08.09.2017 and directing recovery, is per se illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order dated 08.09.2017 granting regular pay scale to the petitioner from the date of initial appointment stands restored. The respondents are further directed to restore all consequential service benefits to the petitioner and to consider his case for promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade- II strictly in accordance with law, within a reasonable period, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 05.02.2026 13.02.2026 13.02.2026 13.02.2026