1 2026:CGHC:23685 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2309 of 2023 Order Reserved on 15.04.2026 Order Delivered on 15.06.2026 1 - Devendra Kumar Rajput S/o Late Shri B. N. Rajput Aged About 62 Years R/o S-2 Priyadarshini Nagar, Ring Road-01, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin 492001, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Vinamra Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For State :- Mrs. Akansha Verma Dhabadker, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the arbitrary denial of promotion from December, 2020, despite juniors being promoted on 23.12.2020, whereas the petitioner was granted promotion belatedly on 21.12.2022, shortly before superannuation on 31.01.2023. It is contended that due to lapses on the part of the respondent authorities in placing ACR before the DPC, the petitioner was deprived of timely promotion, resulting in financial loss and reduced retiral benefits. The petitioner seeks retrospective promotion w.e.f. 14.12.2020 along with consequential benefits including proper pay fixation and revision of pensionary dues. 2. Facts of the case in short is that by way of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the arbitrary, unjust and illegal action of the respondent authorities in denying the benefit of promotion to the petitioner from December, 2020. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Labour Officer on 31.01.2023. However, the promotion order in favour of the petitioner was issued belatedly on 21.12.2022, whereas the juniors to the petitioner were promoted earlier vide order dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure P/1). The said promotion order 3 of the petitioner wrongly records that the claim for promotion on the basis of seniority is not maintainable. As per the applicable service rules and settled principles of service jurisprudence, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted with effect from 14.12.2020, i.e., the date on which his juniors were promoted, along with consequential benefits including notional pay fixation. However, the respondents have erroneously fixed the pay of the petitioner from December, 2022 instead of December, 2020, resulting in a recurring financial loss of approximately Rs. 3,400/- per month to the petitioner. This has adversely impacted the petitioner’s retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity, and leave encashment. Consequently, junior officers are drawing higher salary and pensionary benefits than the petitioner, which is patently unjust and discriminatory. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation dated 23.12.2023 before the respondent authorities seeking redressal of his grievance, but no action has been taken till date. It is pertinent to submit that the non-consideration of the petitioner for timely promotion was solely on account of failure on the part of the respondent authorities, particularly the reporting and custodian officers, who did not place the petitioner’s ACR before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The petitioner 4 cannot be made to suffer for lapses attributable to the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is legally entitled to promotion with retrospective effect from the year 2020 along with all consequential benefits, including proper pay fixation and revision of retiral dues. In view of the arbitrary and illegal acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 3. Following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the records oft his case. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or order to the respondent authorities to consider the promotion of the petitioner from 23.12.2020 and his payment be fixed from the same date. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or order to the respondent authorities to consider his promotion from 23.12.2020 and grant the petitioner all the benefits including arrears of the salary from the Month of December, 2020. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction to 5 the respondent authorities to grant all the retiral dues to the petitioner on the basis of pay fixation from 23.12.2020 following the consequential benefits. 10.5 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the Labour Department of the State of Chhattisgarh on 31.07.1989 as a Labour Inspector and, after rendering long and unblemished service, superannuated from the post of Labour Officer on 31.01.2023. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 14.12.2020 for promotion from the post of Assistant Labour Officer to Labour Officer on the basis of the gradation list dated 01.04.2019, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 4, while his juniors were placed at Serial Nos. 5 and 9; however, vide promotion order dated 23.12.2020, two officers junior to the petitioner were promoted, while the petitioner was denied promotion solely on the ground of non-availability of his ACRs for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018, despite the fact that the petitioner’s name was duly considered and kept in circulation as per the DPC proceedings dated 14.12.2020. The non-availability of ACRs 6 was attributable to the lapse of the reporting/reviewing/accepting authorities, who failed to comply with the applicable circulars governing timely recording of ACRs, and such administrative lapse cannot be used to prejudice the petitioner’s right to promotion. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted promotion belatedly on 21.12.2022 with a stipulation that seniority would not be affected, which is arbitrary and contrary to settled service jurisprudence, as the petitioner was entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, i.e., 23.12.2020, with all consequential benefits. Due to delayed promotion and incorrect pay fixation, the petitioner’s pay was fixed only from January 2023 at Level-12, resulting in a lower basic pay of Rs. 76,600/- as compared to his junior, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, whose pay was fixed at Rs. 75,400/- on 27.01.2021 and subsequently increased to Rs. 77,700/- and above, thereby causing a recurring loss of approximately Rs. 3,400/- per month to the petitioner and adversely affecting his pension, gratuity and other retiral dues. The petitioner made representations dated 30.01.2023 seeking retrospective promotion, notional pay fixation and consequential benefits, but no action has been taken by the respondents. Further, a departmental enquiry has also been initiated against the 7 petitioner in violation of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and Pension Rules, 1976, without following due procedure. Thus, the petitioner has been subjected to arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory treatment by the respondent authorities, compelling him to approach this Hon’ble Court for grant of retrospective promotion, proper pay fixation and all consequential retiral benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and violative of settled principles of service jurisprudence, as well as the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the petitioner, despite being senior and otherwise eligible, has been denied promotion from the due date i.e. 23.12.2020, while his juniors have been granted promotion and consequential benefits. The denial of promotion to the petitioner on the ground of non-availability of ACRs is wholly unjustified and contrary to law, as the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for administrative lapses attributable to the respondent authorities, particularly when the DPC has not found the petitioner unfit or unsuitable for promotion and has merely kept his case in circulation. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents in 8 inserting a condition in the promotion order dated 21.12.2022 to the effect that seniority shall not be affected is ex facie arbitrary, without authority of law and in violation of the petitioner’s vested right to be considered for promotion in accordance with his seniority. The respondents have failed to follow the binding circulars governing preparation and maintenance of ACRs, which mandate that in the absence of self-assessment, the reporting authority must record the same, and therefore, the non-availability of ACRs cannot be used to deny legitimate promotion to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has suffered continuous financial loss due to delayed promotion and improper pay fixation, resulting in a situation where his junior is drawing higher salary and pensionary benefits, which is impermissible in law. Despite submission of a detailed representation dated 30.01.2023, the respondents have failed to take any decision, thereby further aggravating the injustice caused to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be granted retrospective promotion from 23.12.2020 with notional pay fixation and all consequential benefits, including revision of retiral dues, and the impugned actions of the respondents deserve to be quashed. 9 6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. At the outset, it is submitted that it is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and an employee only has a limited right of consideration for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules. In the present case, the candidature of the petitioner was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 14.12.2020; however, since the ACRs of the petitioner for the relevant preceding years were not available before the DPC, which were mandatory for assessing his suitability as per the prescribed benchmark, the DPC, in its wisdom, decided to keep the case of the petitioner in circulation and did not recommend his name for promotion, while the juniors who fulfilled the eligibility criteria and benchmark were rightly found fit and recommended for promotion. It is further submitted that the non-availability of ACRs was a valid and sufficient ground for the DPC to defer consideration of the petitioner, as assessment of service record is an essential requirement for promotion, and no fault can be attributed to the DPC or the respondent authorities in this regard. It is further submitted that upon availability of the complete ACR 10 dossier of the petitioner in the year 2022, the DPC again considered his case and, upon finding him suitable, recommended his name for promotion, pursuant to which the petitioner was duly promoted to the post of Labour Officer vide order dated 21.12.2022. The said promotion has been granted strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules and does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the recommendations of the DPC, which have attained finality, and therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner at this stage is not tenable. The contention of the petitioner seeking retrospective promotion from 23.12.2020 along with notional pay fixation and consequential benefits is misconceived and unsustainable in law, as promotion can only be granted from the date on which the employee is found suitable by the competent authority upon due consideration of his service record. Since the petitioner was found suitable only in the year 2022 after availability of his ACRs, he has rightly been granted promotion from that date, and no retrospective effect can be claimed. It is further submitted that the alleged financial loss or disparity in pay vis-à-vis juniors does not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner to claim retrospective promotion, particularly when the delay in his 11 promotion was on account of non-availability of essential service records at the relevant time. The respondent authorities have acted strictly within the four corners of law, and there is no violation of any statutory provision or constitutional mandate, including Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner has approached this Court after retirement seeking notional promotion with effect from 23.12.2020, i.e., the date on which his juniors were promoted. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was otherwise eligible and his case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC); however, his promotion was deferred solely on account of non- availability of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the relevant period. The said ACRs were required to be maintained, processed and placed before the DPC by the respondent authorities themselves. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted for any omission or administrative lapse attributable to the department. The material available on record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was never 12 declared unfit, nor was there any adverse material against him disentitling him from consideration for promotion. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that an employee cannot be made to suffer because of negligence, inaction or procedural lapses on the part of the employer or the department. In P.N. Premachandran vs. State of Kerala (2004) 1 SCC 245 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an employee cannot be prejudiced for faults attributable to the department. 10. Similarly, in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, the Supreme Court authoritatively held that where promotion is withheld for reasons not attributable to the employee, the employee is entitled to restoration of his legitimate service benefits from the date on which he ought to have been promoted. 11. This Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524 , wherein it has been held that when an employee is wrongly denied promotion due to arbitrary or illegal action of the employer, such employee becomes entitled to notional promotion with consequential service benefits. The principle flowing from the aforesaid judgment is that once the denial of promotion is found to be 13 unjustified, the employer cannot deny consequential notional benefits merely on technical grounds. 12. In the present case, the petitioner’s juniors were admittedly promoted vide order dated 23.12.2020, whereas the petitioner’s case was merely kept in circulation because the requisite ACRs were not produced by the department. Subsequently, upon completion and availability of the service record, the petitioner was found suitable and promoted on 21.12.2022. Thus, the subsequent promotion granted to the petitioner clearly establishes that there existed no legal impediment, adverse material, or disqualification against him at the relevant point of time. The only reason for denial of promotion was the administrative failure of the respondents in maintaining and producing the ACR dossier. 13. The action of the respondents, therefore, falls foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner, despite being senior and otherwise eligible, was deprived of timely promotional benefits while his juniors were allowed to march ahead in service. The doctrine of fairness in public employment obligates the State to ensure that an employee does not suffer civil consequences because of procedural lapses attributable entirely to the administration. 14 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh (II) vs. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209 has reiterated that seniority and promotional rights form part of the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and arbitrary supersession or denial of promotional consideration cannot be sustained in law. 15. Likewise, in Hemraj Singh Chauhan vs. Union of India (2010) 4 SCC 290 , the Apex Court held that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 16. The respondents have attempted to justify the denial of promotion on the ground that promotion can only be granted after assessment of ACRs and suitability by the DPC. There cannot be any quarrel with the said proposition. However, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner was ultimately adjudged fit and promoted by the very same authorities. Therefore, the respondents cannot now contend that the petitioner lacked eligibility or suitability as on the date when his juniors were promoted. The stand of the respondents is self-contradictory and unsustainable. 17. This Court is also mindful of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal vs. 15 Dr. Amal Satpathi 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512 , wherein the Apex Court observed that ordinarily promotion becomes effective upon assumption of duties and retrospective promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right after retirement in absence of enabling statutory provisions. However, the facts of the present case stand on an entirely different footing. Here, the petitioner was denied timely promotion solely because of administrative lapses attributable to the department itself and not because of any statutory embargo, lack of eligibility, or absence of vacancy. The petitioner had already been considered by the DPC during service tenure and his case was deferred merely for want of records which the department was legally obliged to maintain. Therefore, the present case falls within the well-recognized exception where the Court can direct grant of notional benefits to undo manifest injustice caused due to arbitrary departmental action. 18. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where injustice has occurred due to fault of the administration, the Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is empowered to mould relief in such a manner so as to restore parity and prevent hostile discrimination. Denial of notional fixation in the present case would result in a 16 situation where juniors continue to draw higher pay and pensionary benefits than the petitioner despite the latter being admittedly senior and otherwise eligible. Such a consequence would be wholly inequitable and contrary to settled principles governing service jurisprudence. 19. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner has been found fit and granted promotion subsequently, there remains no legal or equitable justification to deny him notional promotion from the date his immediate juniors were promoted. At the same time, considering that the petitioner did not actually discharge duties on the promotional post during the relevant period, grant of actual monetary arrears for the intervening period would not be justified. However, notional fixation for the limited purpose of pensionary and retiral benefits deserves to be granted in order to remove the prejudice caused to the petitioner due to departmental lapses. 20. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to notional promotion to the post of Labour Officer with effect from 23.12.2020, i.e., the date on which his juniors were promoted, along with consequential notional pay fixation and revision of pensionary/retiral 17 benefits. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to actual arrears of salary for the period during which he did not work on the promotional post, and the benefits shall remain confined to notional fixation and recalculation of retiral dues 21. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha