1 2026:CGHC:25779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 06.04.2026 Order Delivered on 23.06.2026 Order Uploaded on 24.06.2026 WPS No. 14136 of 2025 1 - Sundaresan E. S/o Late G. Paramu Aged About 61 Years Working On The Post Of Administrative Officer, C I M S, Bilaspur, R/o Quarter No. 358, Behind Wade, Shivghat, Old Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G. 2 - Under Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G. 3 - Commissioner, Medical Educaton Raipur C.G. 4 - Director, Medical Education, Old Nurses House, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 5 - Dean, Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV ORDER 2 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner Company from the possession of Respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and the Respondents be directed to release the pension of petitioner and other retiral benefits along with the interest @ 18% p.a. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Grade – III vide order dated 18.01.1990. After about 13 years of service, petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade – II. According to the governing rules at that relevant point of time, the requisite period of service in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – II was 05 years. The candidature of petitioner was further considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade – 1 by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in a meeting held on 01.12.2006. Though, according to the relevant rules governing the service of the petitioner provides for promotion from the post of Assistant Grade – II to Assistant Grade – I for the service in the feeder cadre (Assistant Grade – II) of 5 years, however, the petitioner on the date of consideration of his name for promotion has completed 04 years and 11 months. Under the note, there is mention that upon giving one month’s relaxation in the minimum period of service in the feeder cadre, petitioner was considered for promotion, recommendation made by the DPC was considered and accepted by the competent authority and accordingly, the order of promotion was issued on 02.12.2006 promoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Grade – I and considering the post of Assistant Grade – I to be equivalent to the post of Assistant Office 3 Superintendent being of same pay-scale, petitioner was posted as Assistant Office Superintendent vide order dated 03.05.2008. 3. Petitioner thereafter has given his consent for working in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur with a condition that his name will be considered for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent. The Director, Directorate of Medical Education considering the need of filling of the post of Office Superintendent and the consent given by the petitioner vide letter dated 18.08.2008, the Director, Medical Education has initiated the proceedings for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. Name of the petitioner has been fowarded to the Departmental Promotion Committee to be held on 29.08.2008. The Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 15.09.2008 found the petitioner fit for promotion granting him relaxation in the minimum experience in the feeder cadre vide order dated 19.09.2008. Petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant Office Superintendent to the post of Office Superintendent vide order dated 19.09.2008. Further, vide order dated 18.07.2011 issued by the Respondent No. 2, the Under Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department, petitioner was promoted on the post of Administrative Officer (Class – II). However, the Respondent No. 4 based on the complaint dated 09.07.2013 issued a letter/order dated 27.11.2013 of cancellation of the promotion of the petitioner along with 02 others on the ground that the petitioner was irregularly promoted from Class – III to Class – III post which was against the relevant rules of promotion. The Respondent No. 4 has further directed the Respondent No. 2, Director, Medical Education to take necessary action for cancellation of the irregular promotion of the petitioner vide letter dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P/10). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said decision of the respondents was put to challenge in writ petition bearing WP (S) No. 4 4144/2013 which was allowed in part vide order dated 06.07.2021 and the order under challenge (Annexure P/1) therein of the State Government issuing direction to the Director, Medical Education to cancel the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Office Superintendent was set-aside. Respondent No. 5/Dean (CIMS) also issued letter dated 28.03.2025 to the Commissioner, Medical Education, Naya Raipur forwarding the No Enquiry Certificate, No Demand Certificate, No Event Certificate, No Incident Certificate and No Pending Departmental Inquiry Certificate for appropriate action and proceedings. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter, petitioner continued to perform his duties on the post of Administrative Officer till he attained the age of superannuation and retired from services on 31.05.2025 5. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after retirement, petitioner was not paid the retiral dues including the pension. Petitioner thereafter have again filed writ petition bearing WP (S) No. 11655/2025 against the respondents therein seeking the relief for disbursal of the retiral dues of the petitioner including pension. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 16.10.2025, it was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities therein to release the pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits of the petitioner on or before 07.11.2025. The respondents, thereafter, had issued the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 without complying with the directions of this Court in its order dated 16.10.2025 passed in WP (S) No. 11655/2025 and therefore, the action on the part of the respondents is per se illegal arbitrary. He also submits that the action of the respondents in not paying the entire retiral dues for which, the petitioner is entitled on account of passing of an order dated 28.10.2025 is in serious violation of the principles of natural justice as also, the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The respondent authorities are estopped from withholding the pensionary 5 benefits as there is no departmental enquiry proceeding pending against the petitioner on the date of his retirement. The respondent authorities are under legal obligation and are duty bound to release the entire retiral dues for which, the petitioner is entitled at the earliest. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents/State would oppose the submission of the counsel for petitioner and would submit that the petitioner has already been granted the No Objection Certificate vide order dated 23.01.2026 and further, issued a direction to the Respondent No. 5 to pass appropriate order for release of remaining outstanding dues. He contended that the retiral dues of leave encashment, GIS and GPF of the petitioner was released earlier. He further contended that after promotion of the petitioner on the post of Administrative Officer from Office Superintendent, the authorities found certain mistakes/administrative irregularities and therefore, the letters were issued to the concerned authorities and ultimately, the order/letter dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) which was a preliminary order and the final order has been passed on 31.10.2025 amending the date of earlier promotion orders which is not put to challenge. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents/State also submits that the petitioner has not put to challenge the order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure R/1) and the entire retiral dues including the pension for which, the petitioner is entitled, has been disbursed. He contended that the order for fixing the pension is also passed on 17.10.2025 (Annexure R/3) and further, in the order dated 05.02.2026, there is clear mention that the fixation of pension is not the final fixation of pension, but it is a preliminary fixation of the pension and gratuity which is evident from the order dated 05.02.2026. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6 9. Petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings initiated vide order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) wherein, the earlier order of promotion has been amended. Perusal of the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) would show that the petitioner was earlier promoted on 02.12.2006, 03.05.2008 and 19.09.2008 and benefit of promotion has been granted to the petitioner from the subsequent dates of the earlier order of promotions. The part of Annexure P/1 which is a letter dated 28.10.2025 written to the petitioner, it mentions that petitioner may put his submissions with regard to order dated 28.10.2025, uptill 30.10.2025. Petitioner has annexed the copy of the reply dated 30.10.2025 to the letter dated 28.10.2025 along with rejoinder as Annexure R- P/1. Perusal of order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure R/1) enclosed along with the reply of the State Government would show, in an order of 31.10.2025, reply dated 30.10.2025 submitted by the petitioner was considered. 10.The impugned order dated 28.10.2025 is a preliminary order of amendment of earlier order of promotions of the petitioner. It nowhere mentions that it is not a preliminary order of the Commissioner, Medical Education, but only mentions that it is in compliance of the order dated 06.07.2021 passed in WP (S) No. 4114/2013. 11.Be that as it may, from the document placed along with the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner was issued a letter dated 28.10.2025 asking him to submit his response by 30.10.2025. Petitioner received the letter dated 28.10.2025 on 29.10.2025 and thereafter, had also submitted his response to the letter dated 28.10.2025 on 30.10.2025 as it is reflecting from the document (Annexure R – P/1) filed along with the rejoinder, received by respondent on 30.10.2025. The respondent authorities thereafter had passed order on 31.10.2025 (Annexure R/1) in which, the reply/response submitted by the petitioner was also considered. Perusal 7 of the order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure R/1) would show that it is also marked to the petitioner, however, the order dated 31.10.2025 is not put to challenge. Even if the petitioner for one or the other reason, was not aware of the order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure R/1) prior to filing of this writ petition, then also, reply is filed by the respondent specifically making an averment that the order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure R/1) is not put to challenge as it being the final order, the petitioner could have filed appropriate proceedings challenging the subsequent order dated 31.10.2025. Petitioner has not challenged the subsequent final order which was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12.In the aforementioned facts of the case, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on the said ground only, reserving liberty with the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings challenging the order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure R/1) if he so desire. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY