1 2026:CGHC:23262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1506 of 2022 1 - Palash Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Sukhi Ram Dewangan Aged About 28 Years Working As Assistant Grade - Iii, Tehsil Office Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tahsildar Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.05.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P/1). 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to correct the gradation list of the petitioner and consider the petitioner seniority w.e.f. 17.04.2012 i.e. the date of appointment. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may -2- deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III under respondent No.2 vide order dated 17.04.2012 and joined the services on 04.05.2012. He would further submit that his services were transferred vide order dated 13.08.2019 from Tehsil Office, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa to Sub-Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.). He would contend that in the seniority list published on 09.09.2019, name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.56 and his seniority has been reckoned with effect from 09.09.2019 insptie of 04.05.2012. Mr. Rao would further contend that as the services of the petitioner were transferred on account of administrative exigency, his seniority should have been reckoned from date of joining of services i.e. on 04.05.2012. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dwijen Chandra Sarkar Vs. Union of India, reported in 1999(2) SCC 119. He would pray to quash order dated 17.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It appears that services of the petitioner were transferred from Tehsil Office, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa to Sub-Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and thereafter, his seniority was reckoned from date of transfer inspite of date of joining i.e. on 04.05.2012. 3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dwijen Chandra Sarkar (supra) in para 17 held as under : “17. On the facts of the present case and especially in view of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that when the transfer is in public interest and not on request, the two employees transferred cannot be in a worse position than those in the above rulings who have been transferred on request and who in those cases accepted that their names could appear at the bottom of the seniority list. Even in cases relating to request transfers, this Court has held, as seen above, that the past service will count or eligibility for certain purposes though it may not count for seniority. 18. Hence the transfer order and circular concerned of 1983 which required that the past service should not count for seniority, cannot have any bearing on eligibility for time-bound promotion. Seniority and time-bound promotions are different concepts, as stated above. 19. For the above reasons, we hold that the past service of the appellants is to be counted for the limited purpose of eligibility– for computing the number of years of qualifying service, to enable them to claim the higher grade under the Scheme of Time-bound Promotions.” 6. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dwijen Chandra Sarkar (supra), in opinion of this Court, order dated 17.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside and the respondent No.2 is directed to reckon the seniority of the petitioner from initial date of joining his service. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha