1 2026:CGHC:22283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5535 of 2017  Mangla Shrivastava W/o Late Shri V.N. Shrivastava, Aged About 55 Years Resident Of F - 4, Shanti Nagar, Behind Gaurav Vatika, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Through The Secretary, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2. The Upper Secretary, Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Shri Ravindra Singh, Section Officer / Finance Committee Officer, Secretariat, Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Shri Dinesh Tripathi, Section Officer / Finance Committee Officer, Secretariat, Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Shri Krishna Bihari Shukla, Section Officer / Finance Committee Officer, Secretariat, Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Shri Sukhdev Singh, Section Officer / Finance Committee Officer, Secretariat, Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Sunil Kumar Bharadwaj, Section Officer / Finance Committee Officer, Secretariat, Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.05.13 14:26:00 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Pragya Vaishnav, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Vivek Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 12.5.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 05.10.2017 Annexure P/1 and Gradation list dated 05.10.2017 (Annexure P/2 to the extent it relates to the petitioner), with all consequential benefits. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent to place the petitioner over and above Sunil Bhardwaj in the gradation list and consider the petitioner for promotion in the post of Under Secretary according to her seniority. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha vide order dated 1.1.1983. In the year 2000, State of Chhattisgarh came into existence and petitioner opted for State of Chhattisgarh. She was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk vide order dated 16.9.2004 w.e.f. 25.1.1996. She was granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I vide order dated 20.2.2005. Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha vide order dated 7.11.2009 3 approved its earlier order dated 16.9.2004 and maintained the promotion of petitioner to the post of Assistant Grade-I w.e.f. 13.4.2002. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Finance Committee Officer vide order dated 17.6.2010. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 5.10.2017 canceled the promotion orders dated 20.2.2005 and 7.11.2009 and issued gradation list placing petitioner below one Sukhdev Singh. 3) Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thus the order is in utter violation to the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. 4) On the other hand, Mr. A. S. Kachhwaha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that petitioner was promoted to the posts of Assistant Grade-I and Finance Committee Officer without following the due procedure as no meeting of departmental promotion committee was convened. He further submits that colleagues of petitioner made complaints and sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner as show- cause notices were issued on 4.6.2011 and 4.7.2011 before taking the final decision. He contends that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5) Mr. Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 would support the argument advanced by Mr. Kachhwaha. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 4 available on record. 7) Admittedly, petitioner was granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 20.2.2005 and further promotion to the post of Finance Committee Officer vide order dated 17.6.2010. Respondent No. 2 cancelled the aforestated orders on 5.10.2017 on the ground that petitioner was promoted without following the due procedure and without holding the meeting of departmental promotion committee. However, show cause notices were served upon petitioner on 4.6.2011 and 4.7.2011 seeking her response on the representation/ complaint made by her colleagues with regard to seniority. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Ratan Sinha vs. State of Bihar1 rejected the straightforward application of useless formality theory and held that when an administrative decision has civil consequences (like demotion or promotion cancellation), a fair hearing must be given before taking action, even if the authority believes the outcome would be the same. 9) In the present case, Mr. Sharma has argued that there was no mistake rather the petitioner was rightly promoted to the higher posts whereas Mr. Kachhwaha has taken stand that the petitioner was promoted without following the due procedure. However, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the order of cancellation of promotions, in my opinion, the order of cancellation of promotion passed by respondent No.2 1. AIRONLINE 2009 SC 302 5 dated 5.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. 10) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed. However, respondent- department would be at liberty to take appropriate decision with regard to cancellation of promotions, if so advised after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a