1 / 4 2026:CGHC:12508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 856 of 2024 R.K. Vyas S/o Shri V.R. Vyas Aged About 57 Years R/o L.I.G. 1367, Sector 8, Behind Science Center, Saddu, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Cum Director Town And Country Planning, Indravati Bhawan, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director Town And Country Planning Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - P. Toppo Retired Assistant Director, Town And Country Planning Raipur, R/o Near Kajal Kirana Store, Phase-1, Rawatpura Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Uma Singh Retired Superintendent, Town And Country Planning Raipur, R/o Malti Residency, Amlidih, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG 2 / 4 For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 16.03.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the records of this case. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or order to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him all the benefits of promotion from 2008 and grant the petitioner all the benefits including salary in accordance to the revised pay scale from the year 2008. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that private respondent no. 4 and 5 have been granted promotion on the post of Assistant Grade -I on 09.02.2004 whereas they have been appointed subsequent to the petitioner and Junior to petitioner in the cadre. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-I. 3. Learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that cadre in which petitioner is appointed and cadre in which respondent no. 4 and 5 were appointed are different. Petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk vide Annexure P-3 whereas respondent no. 4 and 5 were appointed as 3 / 4 Upper Division Clerk, therefore, petitioner cannot claim parity for promotion to respondent no. 4 and 5. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner was confronted with the documents enclosed along with this writ petition i.e. the order of appointment of petitioner dated 22.03.1993 and the order of appointment of respondent no. 4 and 5 on which he has not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for State with respect to the post on which petitioner and respondent no. 4 and 5 were appointed that they were different post. 6. The petitioner was appointed by way of promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 11.04.2008 and petitioner might have been extended the benefit of promoted post from the date he was promoted. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and further considering that the post in which petitioner is appointed and the post on which respondent no. 4 and 5 were different post and, therefore, petitioner cannot claim parity of promotion to that of respondent no. 4 and 5. Accordingly, the said submission of petitioner is rejected. 8. So far as it relates to the claim of petitioner for granting benefit of promotion from the year 2008, petitioner has not specifically stated as to what benefit is not extended to him. In absence of specific averment in petition, no such relief as prayed for in clause 10.2, he can be 4 / 4 granted. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza