1 2026:CGHC:507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2630 of 2023 1 - B.K. Sharma S/o Shri J.L. Sharma, Aged About 69 Years R/o Mukut Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, H.Q. - Indrawati Bhawan, Phase - Iii, 1st Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining the concerning matter. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondents to quash the impugned order, dt. 10/02/2023 [Annexure-P/1] 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Senior Auditor w.e.f. 01/02/2005 and the further, on the post of Accounts Officer w.e.,f. 01/02/2010. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities for grant of arrears of pay and allowances with all consequential benefits of services. 10.5 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as deem fit and proper with cost of petition.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to Government service on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the School Education Department by order dated 25.01.1977. During the course of his service, he earned promotions from time to time on the basis of his seniority, experience and eligibility. In the month of August, 1989, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Accountant and thereafter, in July, 1995, he was further promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk. Thus, the petitioner continuously served the Department on promotional posts for several years without any adverse remark against him. Subsequent to the reorganization of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and the formation of the new State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2000, the Office of the 3 Directorate of Public Instructions was established. For the purpose of staffing the newly created office, the petitioner, along with several other employees of the School Education Department, was posted to the said office in the year 2000. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated employees, who were originally borne on the School Education Department, were formally absorbed in the Office of the Directorate of Public Instructions vide order dated 25.07.2003, with retrospective effect from 01.11.2000, by taking into account their entire previous service period. However, to the utter shock and prejudice of the petitioner, the said absorption order dated 25.07.2003 was abruptly cancelled by a subsequent order dated 01.09.2003. Aggrieved by the arbitrary cancellation of the absorption order, the petitioner along with other affected employees approached this Court by filing writ petitions bearing W.P. No. 4059/2003 and W.P. No. 4060/2003. After hearing the parties at length, the Court was pleased to allow the writ petitions and, vide order dated 13.12.2017, set aside the cancellation order dated 01.09.2003 and restored the original absorption order along with all consequential service benefits. In compliance with the aforesaid judgment of the Court, the respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 04.01.2019, whereby the cancellation of the absorption order was quashed and the absorption order dated 25.07.2003 was restored. Despite restoration of the absorption order, the petitioner was not granted the consequential service 4 benefits flowing from the judgment of this Court. Consequently, the petitioner submitted several representations claiming grant of consequential benefits. When the said representations were not considered and the order of this Court dated 13.12.2017 remained uncomplied with, the petitioner was constrained to initiate contempt proceedings. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition (Service) No. 1538/2020, which came to be disposed of by order dated 06.04.2022, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. However, even thereafter, the respondents failed to extend the due benefits to the petitioner, compelling him to file another contempt petition bearing Contempt Case (C) No. 754/2022. It is further stated that only after issuance of notice in the contempt proceedings, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and granted him promotion to the post of Senior Auditor with effect from 01.07.2013. The petitioner submits that the said promotion has been granted belatedly and contrary to law, as he was in fact entitled to be promoted to the post of Senior Auditor with effect from 01.02.2005, upon the retirement of one Shri R.P. Singh on 31.01.2005. Further, the petitioner was also entitled to be promoted to the higher post of Accounts Officer with effect from 01.02.2010, which has also been illegally denied to him. The petitioner raised his legitimate grievance regarding grant of correct promotional benefits before this Court in Contempt Case (C) No. 754/2022. The Court, however, vide order dated 5 24.02.2023, granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) by way of appropriate proceedings. The petitioner further submits that he has already superannuated from service on 30.04.2016. For more than two decades, the petitioner has been relentlessly pursuing his legitimate service claims before the authorities as well as before this Court. Despite possessing all requisite qualifications and eligibility for promotion to the posts of Senior Auditor and Accounts Officer, the petitioner has been arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his rightful promotional and consequential service benefits by the respondents, in a manner wholly illegal, unreasonable and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actions and inactions of the respondent authorities are ex facie illegal, arbitrary and wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law. Despite repeated judicial interventions and clear directions issued by this Court, the respondents have failed to extend the lawful and consequential service benefits to the petitioner. Such conduct on the part of the respondents is contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence and amounts to a blatant disregard of law, rendering their actions bad in law and liable to be interfered with by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner was fully eligible and possessed all requisite qualifications for promotion to the post of Senior Auditor, which fell vacant upon the retirement of 6 Shri R.P. Singh on 31.01.2005. In view of his eligibility, seniority and availability of vacancy, the petitioner was legally entitled to be promoted to the said post with effect from 01.02.2005. However, the respondents, without any justifiable reason, denied the petitioner his rightful promotion and have instead granted him promotion to the post of Senior Auditor only with effect from 01.07.2013, causing grave prejudice and financial loss to the petitioner. Such delayed promotion is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the service rules governing the field. Learned counsel further submits that after rendering five years of service on the post of Senior Auditor, the petitioner became entitled to further promotion to the post of Accounts Officer with effect from 01.02.2010. However, the respondents have completely ignored this legitimate claim and have failed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the higher post of Accounts Officer. The denial of timely promotion to both the posts has resulted in serious civil consequences for the petitioner, particularly in relation to his pay fixation, pension and other retiral benefits. It is also contended that once the services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Office of the Directorate of Public Instructions in terms of the absorption order dated 25.07.2003, which has been restored by the orders of this Court, the petitioner became entitled to all consequential service benefits by counting his service from the date of absorption. The respondents were under a legal obligation to grant all such benefits, including promotions, seniority and 7 financial upgradations, by taking into account the petitioner’s entire length of service. Their failure to do so is patently illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the arbitrary denial of promotions and consequential benefits to the petitioner, despite his eligibility and availability of vacancies, amounts to hostile discrimination and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been treated unequally and unfairly in comparison to similarly situated employees, without any reasonable classification or lawful justification. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is contended that the promotions claimed by the petitioner are not automatic and are subject to availability of vacancies, fulfillment of eligibility conditions and consideration by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with the applicable rules. The petitioner cannot claim promotion with retrospective effect as a matter of right. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been granted promotion as per rules and seniority and no arbitrariness or illegality has been committed by the respondents. The absorption of service has been duly considered in terms of the orders passed by this Court and all admissible benefits have been extended. There is no violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has not been discriminated against vis-à-vis similarly 8 situated employees. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. The principal issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner has a legally enforceable right to claim promotion with retrospective effect to the posts of Senior Auditor and Accounts Officer, merely on the basis of alleged availability of vacancies and his eligibility, and whether denial of such retrospective promotion amounts to arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is a settled position of law that an employee does not have a fundamental or vested right to promotion; rather, he has only a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules. Promotion becomes effective from the date it is actually granted and not from the date on which a vacancy arises. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512 has categorically reiterated that promotion cannot be granted retrospectively unless the rules expressly so provide, and that retrospective promotions or seniority cannot be conferred in a manner that may disturb the settled rights of others or adversely affect third parties and has held as under : “19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the 9 date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, wherein it was observed as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three- Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be 10 considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent- writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters 11 relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of 12 Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’ “20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., in the following words: 13 ‘37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits…… 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal 14 Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.” 9. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed on record any statutory rule, regulation or executive instruction which confers upon him an indefeasible right to retrospective promotion from the dates claimed by him. There is also no material on record to establish that a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee had considered his case for promotion to the posts of Senior Auditor or Accounts Officer on the claimed dates and that he was illegally superseded or ignored. Mere existence of a vacancy does not automatically entitle an employee to promotion from the date of occurrence of such vacancy. 10. The contention of the petitioner that restoration of absorption necessarily entitles him to retrospective promotions also cannot be accepted. Restoration of absorption ensures continuity of service and eligibility for consideration in accordance with rules, but it does not, by itself, mandate retrospective promotion unless the governing service rules so provide. The respondents have demonstrated that the petitioner’s case was duly considered and he was granted promotion in accordance with rules and seniority as and when found appropriate. The plea of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is also misconceived. The 15 petitioner has failed to establish that he was treated differently from other similarly situated employees or that any junior employee was promoted ahead of him in violation of the rules. In absence of proof of hostile discrimination or arbitrariness, the constitutional challenge cannot be sustained. 11. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the petitioner has already superannuated from service. Grant of retrospective promotions at this stage, in the absence of a clear legal mandate, would amount to conferring a benefit which is not sanctioned by law and may have cascading effects on seniority, pay fixation and service benefits of other employees, which is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the respondents have acted within the framework of law and applicable service rules. The petitioner has been granted promotion as per due consideration, and no illegality, arbitrariness or violation of constitutional provisions is made out warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE