1 2026:CGHC:8592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 928 of 2025 1 - Filianus Toppo S/o Shri Julius Officer Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As In-Charge, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Technical Cell, High Court Premises, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Under Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawna, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Engigeer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhavan, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondents/State No.1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 17/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 To kindly direct the respondents to produce the complete records of the case before this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 To kindly direct the respondents to convene a review DPC for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 23.10.2020 and after consideration of BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.20 18:21:55 +0530 2 the case of the petitioner he may be granted all consequential benefits. 10.3 To kindly pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to ensure that the petitioner’s rights are safeguarded, and justice is done.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is holding the post of Executive Engineer and became eligible for his promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer, accordingly, name of petitioner was considered for promotion along with other similarly situated employees in meeting dated 23.10.2020 by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Petitioner was found eligible for promotion, however, he could not be promoted only because vacant post of Superintending Engineer was not available on the said date. In the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee, as many as five persons, who was otherwise eligible for promotion, could not be promoted for want of vacant post as is appearing from the documents annexed along with writ petition at Page No.16. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that one Parmanand Sai, who has filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 5253 of 2020 for considering his name for promotion, was disposed of vide order dated 15.01.2021 directing the respondents authorities to conduct review DPC. Accordingly, review DPC was conducted and promotion order was issued on 30.10.2024 for promotion of employees as named therein w.e.f. 29.05.2020. He contended that by that order three Superintending Engineers were promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, therefore, three post of Superintending Engineer became vacant as on 29.05.2020. He also contended that as DPC for promotion of petitioner 3 and other similar situated employees was considered on 23.10.2020, therefore, in the fats of the case, three vacant posts are to be filled up by promotion of the employees who were under the zone of consideration in the meeting convened on 23.10.2020 but could not be promoted for want of vacant post. It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that one Devendra Kumar Netam, who was just above the petitioner in the meeting dated 23.10.2020 and could not be promoted for want of vacant post of Superintending Engineer, had submitted representation before the respondents authorities and his representation was considered and issued an order of promotion dated 29.04.2025 was issued to be promoted w.e.f. 29.10.2020 i.e. the order of promotion issued in favour of employees who were considered for promotion in the DPC dated 23.10.2020. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was also entitled to be considered for promotion along with Devendra Kumar Netam and same benefit and order ought to have been issued in favour of petitioner also. Respondents authorities have committed error in not issuing an order of promotion in favour of petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel do not dispute the factual submission made by learned counsel for petitioner with respect to availability of vacant post w.e.f. 29.05.2020 pursuant to the order of promotion of Superintending Engineer to the post of Chief Engineer, he however, submits that though petitioner became eligible for promotion but could not be promoted because of want of vacant post but subsequently petitioner was served with charge memo and departmental enquiry was initiated against him and he was inflicted with punishment of withholding of two 4 increment with cumulative effect, therefore, petitioner could not be promoted along with Devendra Kumar Netam. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits from the documents enclosed along with reply by the State as Annexure R-3, it is appearing that petitioner was served with charge memo on 09.07.2021, whereas, DPC was convened on 23.10.2020, therefore, the eligibility of petitioner for his promotion is to be considered as on 23.10.2020 on which date no departmental enquiry was pending against him. 5. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that from the documents enclosed along with writ petition, it is appearing that at the time of convening of meeting of DPC dated 23.10.2020, post were not vacant for promotion of petitioner and other employees as mentioned therein at Sr. No.40 to 44, though they were found to be suitable for promotion. Making available of the vacancy is for the State Government. He submits that respondent No.3 acts upon proposal forwarded by State Government mentioning the number of vacancy and other relevant documents of the concerned employee for promotion. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner was holding the post of Executive Engineer, was considered for promotion along with other Executive Engineers in the cadre in the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee convened on 23.10.2020. Petitioner was found suitable for his promotion but could not be promoted for want of vacant post. It is 5 also not in dispute that the post of Superintending Engineer became vacant when review DPC was convened for promotion of Superintending Engineers to the post of Chief Engineer and three Superintending Engineer were promoted to the post of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 29.05.2020. Accordingly, three posts of Superintending Engineer became vacant on 29.05.2020. It is also not in dispute that one Devendra Kumar Netam, who was found suitable for promotion in the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 23.10.2020 after getting knowledge about availability of vacant post of Superintending Engineer, had submitted an application/representation that he should be considered for promotion w.e.f. 23.10.2020 and representation submitted by the said employee was allowed and he was promoted vide order dated 29.04.2025 granting promotion w.e.f. 29.10.2020 meaning thereby candidature of Devendra Kumar Netam was considered as on 23.10.2020 i.e. date of meeting convened by the Departmental Promotion Committee. 8. In the above facts of the case, the defence taken by the State that subsequent to the DPC dated 23.10.2020, petitioner was served with charge memo, which culminated into the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, therefore, petitioner is denied promotion, is not sustainable. Candidature of petitioner and his suitability for his promotion is to be considered in the facts of the case as on 23.10.2020. From proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 23.10.2020, there is no such objection recorded by Departmental Promotion Committee and he was found suitable, therefore, this writ petition is allowed in part and respondents authorities are directed to consider the candidature of petitioner in the 6 light of the proceedings recorded by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 23.10.2020 for his promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer and orders be passed keeping in mind that similarly situated employee namely Devendra Kumar Netam was promoted on 29.04.2025 with effect from 29.10.2020. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram