1 2026:CGHC:1971-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 245 of 2024 Anil Kumar Verma S/o Shri Shyam Lal Verma Aged About 52 Years Occupation - Service, R/o 52 J.P. Vihar Colony Mangla Tahsil And Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.), Pin 495001 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Joint Secretary Department Ministry of Home Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) Civil And Revenue District Raipur (C.G.), Pin 492001 2 - The Director Directorate Sainik Welfare, Chhattisgarh Motibag Road Shastri Chowk Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur (C.G.), Pin 492001 3 - District Sainik Welfare Officer District Sainik Welfare Office, Collectorate Parisar, Raigarh Civil And Revenue, District Raigarh, Pin 496001 4 - B. Ravi S/o B. Balram Aged About 53 Years Post - Assistant Grade- 1, Office of Directorate Sainik Welfare, Chhattisgarh Motibag Road Shastri Chowk Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur (C.G.), Pin - 492001 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Srinivas Rao, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.14 10:39:32 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following reliefs :- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned amended notification dated 19.01.2021 Annexure-R/1. The respondent no.2 refer to the amend the notification in favour of respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 4 working as Assistant Grade-1 at Raipur under the respondent no.2. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for the promotion on the post of Section officer as the amended rule is not applicable in the petitioner's case, the petitioner completed five years service in the year 2018. 10.4 Any other relief or relief as the Hon'ble Court may kindly deem fit and proper.” 3 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the respondent authorities i.e. respondents No.1 to 3 issued a direct recruitment advertisement on 14.05.2012 (Annexure-P/2) in accordance with the then-prevailing Service Rules dated 12.02.1988. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was temporarily appointed under the Ex- Serviceman quota to the post of Superintendent in the pay scale of ₹5200–20200 with Grade Pay ₹2800 on 23.09.2013 and joined service on 01.10.2013 at the District Sainik Welfare Office, Jagdalpur, a notified tribal area. After completion of the prescribed training period of two years, the petitioner was confirmed in service vide order dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure-P/5). The petitioner continuously served at Jagdalpur for about nine years in a tribal area and was thereafter transferred to Raigarh vide order dated 26.10.2022, where he is presently working as Superintendent, District Sainik Welfare Office, Raigarh (C.G.). The petitioner has completed more than ten years of regular service on the post of Superintendent. 4. As per the unamended service rules, eligibility for promotion to the post of Section Officer required completion of five years’ service, including four years’ service in a tribal area, on the post of Superintendent. The petitioner fulfilled all the said eligibility conditions by the year 2018. Despite this, the respondents mala- fidely amended the service rules vide notification dated 19.01.2021. Although one post of Section Officer remains vacant till date, the respondents have failed to convene the Departmental 4 Promotion Committee and have illegally denied promotion to the petitioner, while extending promotional benefits to other employees in violation of the applicable rules. The amendments introduced in the Vibhagiya Bharti Niyam, 1987, and the notification dated 19.01.2021 were applied selectively to confer undue benefit upon respondent No.4, who was working as Assistant Grade-I at Raipur, whereas the petitioner being senior and otherwise eligible was arbitrarily excluded. The petitioner has thus suffered continuing financial and service prejudice, as the promotional post of Section Officer carries a higher Grade Pay of ₹4300/- under the Sixth Pay Commission, as against the petitioner’s existing Grade Pay of ₹2800/-. 5. Earlier, the petitioner had filed writ petition bearing WPS No.511/2021 seeking consideration of his case for promotion, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh, properly constituted writ petition vide order dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure- P/7). Hence, the present writ petition. 6. The State/respondents No.1 to 3 has filed its return-affidavit stating that the promotion cannot be claimed by an employee as a matter of right. The entitlement of an employee is limited to consideration of his name for promotion in accordance with the applicable departmental rules. The service of the petitioner is governed by the M.P./Chhattisgarh Directorate of Sainik Welfare (Class III Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1987. After formation 5 of the State of Chhattisgarh, these rules were adopted by the State. After formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the Department identified certain lacunae/shortcomings in the Rules, 1987, due to which employees were deprived of benefits like promotion. Amendments were proposed to the State Government to rectify the same and to ensure employees/officers could avail lawful promotional benefits. The rules were amended w.e.f. 19.01.2021 by Amendment No.39, which is a valid and legitimate order of the State Government. 7. It was further pleaded that the promotion is subject to departmental rules. While yearly Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is a requirement, multiple considerations arise before a DPC is planned and conducted. The DPC could not be conducted in 2018 due to the process of rectifying existing anomalies before Amendment No.39/2021 was finalized. The Vibhagiya Bharti Niyam, 1987 was outdated and required rectification, particularly regarding AG-1 and Office Superintendent posts. The claim that the rules were mala-fidely amended is a figment of imagination and is strongly refuted. There is no documentary evidence to support such allegations. The claim that respondent No.2 amended the notification in favour of respondent No.4 is baseless and denied. 8. It was also pleaded that AG-1 and Superintendent posts are in the same pay scale. It is therefore incorrect to assert that the AG-1 6 post is below that of the Superintendent. The delay in conducting the DPC in 2018 was due to rectifying existing anomalies prior to finalization of Amendment No.39/2021. The petitioner’s contentions regarding loss of pay benefits and other consequential claims are baseless and strongly refuted. 9. It was lastly pleaded that the allegations of discrimination, mala- fides, or arbitrariness regarding Amendment No.39/2021 are unfounded and strongly refuted. AG-1 and Superintendent posts are in the same pay scale, so it is incorrect to assert that AG-1 is junior to the petitioner. The claim of selective amendment in favour of respondent No.4 is without any basis and denied. While yearly DPC is required, multiple considerations affect its timing, which explains the inability to conduct it in 2018. The petitioner’s name shall be duly considered in the DPC for promotion to Section Officer as per the Interse Seniority List and other applicable promotion rules of Chhattisgarh State, without prejudice to any other employee. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 10. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner pleading therein that the petitioner had earlier filed WPS No.511/2021, wherein he was not challenging any specific order but only sought consideration for promotion. The writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh, duly constituted petition dated 08.12.2023. After filing WPS No.511/2021, the respondents amended 7 Notification No.1/02(HOME)DSW/2019 dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure-P/1). This fresh writ petition challenges the amended notification. According to the amended notification, the Assistant Grade-1 post is equal to Superintendent; employees completing five years in Assistant Grade-1 are entitled for promotion to Section Officer. However, the petitioner had completed five years as Superintendent before the amendment and was thus entitled to promotion under the old rules. 11. It is pleaded that the respondents issued a direct recruitment advertisement on 14.05.2012 (Annexure-P/2) under the old service rules dated 12.02.1988. The petitioner was temporarily appointed under the Ex-Serviceman quota on 23.09.2013 as Superintendent (pay scale ₹5200–20200, Grade Pay ₹2800) at District Sainik Welfare Office, Jagdalpur. After nine years of service in the tribal area, he was transferred to Raigarh on 26.10.2022 and is presently working as Superintendent, District Sainik Welfare Office, Raigarh (C.G.). The petitioner was confirmed in service on 15.12.2015 and has now completed ten years of service as Superintendent. The petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Section Officer. As per service rules, the eligibility criteria required a minimum of five years’ service and four years’ service in a tribal area as Superintendent. The respondents mala-fidely amended the service conditions vide the notification dated 19.01.2021, which is not applicable to the petitioner’s case. 8 12. It is further pleaded that one post of Section Officer has remained vacant, but the respondents did not issue a promotion order in favor of the petitioner. Other departmental employees were promoted in accordance with service rules. The petitioner was entitled to promotion in 2018 after completing five years as Superintendent while serving in Jagdalpur tribal area, in accordance with the guidelines issued on 03.06.2015. The respondents’ reference to amend Notification 19.01.2021 (Annexure-P/1) in favor of respondent No.4, working as Assistant Grade-1 at Raipur, is irrelevant to the petitioner. The amended notification does not apply to employees who completed the required period before 19.01.2021. According to Anusoochi-4 of the service rules, the petitioner is entitled to promotion to Section Officer. The Departmental Promotion Committee, constituted every year (Annexure-P/6 dated 15.01.2021), was ignored in the petitioner’s case. Assistant Grade-1 employees, previously junior to Superintendents, were promoted, while the petitioner was denied his lawful promotion. 13. It is also pleaded that the petitioner’s pay scale as Superintendent is ₹2800/- Grade Pay, whereas promotion to Section Officer carries ₹4300/- Grade Pay under the Sixth Pay Commission. Denial of promotion has caused loss of other pay benefits. The petitioner’s service is governed by the M.P./Chhattisgarh Directorate of Sainik Welfare (Class III Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1987, adopted by Chhattisgarh State. The 9 appointment letter issued under the adopted rules entitles the petitioner to promotion as Section Officer according to the old rules; the amended notification dated 19.01.2021 is not applicable. Although the pay scale of Superintendent and Assistant Grade-1 posts is now equal under the amended rules, the functions and powers are different. The Superintendent is in charge of the entire office, while Assistant Grade-1 officers work under the Superintendent. 14. Mr. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Section Officer as per the M.P./Chhattisgarh Directorate of Sainik Welfare (Class III Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1987, adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner had completed the required eligibility period of five years’ service as Superintendent, including service in a tribal area, prior to the amendment dated 19.01.2021, and was thus eligible for promotion under the old rules. The amended notification dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure-P/1) applies to employees who completed five years of service in the post of Assistant Grade-1, and cannot retrospectively affect the petitioner, who had already completed the required period as Superintendent. 15. Mr. Rao further submits that the petitioner’s claim is based on long and continuous service of ten years as Superintendent, including nine years in a tribal area, and he has fulfilled all eligibility criteria 10 under the service rules and guidelines issued by the respondents. The petitioner had earlier filed WPS No.511/2021 seeking consideration for promotion, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. The present petition challenges the failure of respondents to promote him despite the existence of a vacant Section Officer post. The respondents have mala-fidely ignored the Departmental Promotion Committee, which is constituted annually as per the rules, and have granted promotion to junior employees, including those who were previously below the rank of Superintendent. 16. It is submitted by Mr. Rao that the Superintendent post carries distinct powers and responsibilities compared to Assistant Grade- 1. The petitioner, being in charge of the entire office and having rendered service in tribal areas, is entitled to promotion, and denial of the same results in loss of pay, grade, and other service benefits under the Sixth Pay Commission. The petitioner has a clear and enforceable right to be considered for promotion, and that denial of promotion based on the amended notification is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the service rules in force at the relevant time. As such, it is prayed that the petitioner’s case be considered for promotion to the post of Section Officer without being adversely affected by the retrospective application of the amended notification dated 19.01.2021, and that the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits, including pay and grade. 11 17. On the other hand, Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the promotion is not a matter of right and an employee is only entitled to have his name considered for promotion in accordance with the departmental rules. The service of the petitioner is governed by the M.P./Chhattisgarh Directorate of Sainik Welfare (Class III Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1987, which were adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh after its formation. After adoption of the rules, the Department identified certain anomalies and shortcomings, which affected promotional benefits. Amendment No.39 dated 19.01.2021 was issued to rectify these anomalies and to ensure uniformity and fairness in promotions. 18. Mr. Bhaduri further submits that the amendment is a valid and legitimate order of the State Government. The petitioner’s claim that the amended notification has been mala-fidely applied is completely baseless. AG-1 and Superintendent posts are now on equal pay scale, but prior to the amendment, the Assistant Grade- 1 post was below Superintendent in hierarchy. The amended notification does not retrospectively prejudice other employees but ensures correct application of the rules going forward. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is required to be constituted annually. In 2018, the DPC could not be conducted due to the ongoing process of rectifying anomalies and finalizing 12 Amendment No.39/2021. There is no intentional delay or malafide action on part of the respondents. 19. Mr. Bhaduri submits that the contention that the petitioner was denied promotion while junior employees, including respondent No.4, were promoted, is incorrect. The amended notification clarifies the hierarchy and eligibility for promotion under the current rules and does not adversely affect employees who were ineligible under the earlier rules. The Superintendent and Assistant Grade-1 posts may now carry the same pay scale under the amendment, but their functions and delegated powers are different. The Superintendent is in charge of the entire office, while Assistant Grade-1 officers work under the Superintendent. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed, as the amended notification is valid, lawful, and applicable, and there has been no violation of any service rule or entitlement in his case. 20. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 21. It is well settled that promotion is not a vested right of a government servant. The Constitution of India does not confer an absolute right to promotion merely because an employee has rendered a requisite period of service. The method and criteria for filling promotional posts are to be determined by the legislature 13 and the executive under valid service rules. This position has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent pronouncements. 22. In P. Sakthi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2025 INSC 620), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an employee has no right to be promoted, but he has a legitimate right to be considered for promotion, provided he is otherwise eligible and not disqualified under the rules. 23. Further, in Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi (2024 INSC 906), the Supreme Court acknowledged that while the right to be considered for promotion is a facet of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself and promotional rights accrue only when the process under the rules is properly followed. 24. Earlier decisions of the Supreme Court have also clarified that a rule that adversely affects the chances of promotion is not equivalent to a rule affecting a condition of service unless it directly impairs the right to be considered for promotion. The right to be considered for promotion is recognized as part of equal opportunity under Article 16(1), but the chance or prospect of promotion by itself is not actionable. 25. In the present case, the petitioner’s grievance is based on his non-promotion to the post of Section Officer despite having completed the qualifying service period as Superintendent. The 14 respondents, however, have explained that the promotional rules were amended by Amendment No.39 dated 19.01.2021 to rectify anomalies and streamline the promotional hierarchy, which was within the rule-making authority vested in the State. 26. There is no material on record to indicate that the amendment was applied in a discriminatory or malafide manner against the petitioner. The impugned amendment applied prospectively and sought to rationalize the promotional criteria; it did not confer any retrospective or adhoc entitlement to promotion where none existed. It is well established that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, and not merely by the occurrence of vacancy or eligibility criteria being satisfied. 27. The delay or inability to conduct the Departmental Promotion Committee in a particular year due to administrative reasons or rule amendment cannot be equated with denial of the petitioner’s right to be considered, unless it is shown to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. No such malafide or discriminatory conduct is made out on the record. 28. In the absence of any legal infirmity in the respondents’ actions or rule amendment, the petitioner has no legally enforceable right to claim promotion as a matter of right. His entitlement is limited to consideration for promotion in accordance with the service rules and seniority, which the State can lawfully and reasonably enforce. 15 29. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the absence of any compelling legal or factual infirmity in the respondents’ actions, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 30. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu