1 CGHC010201922026 2026:CGHC:32188-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 622 of 2026 1 - Nandkishore Rai S/o Shri B. N. Rai Aged About 46 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer At Creda, District Office Korba, R/o Flat No. 159, Koshabadi, Korba, Police Station Rampur, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abhishek Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Ramprasad Shukla Aged About 44 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer At Creda, Head Office Raipur, R/o Rlat No. 505, Shrizee Kalpataru Heights, Amlidih, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rahul Gupta S/o Shri Ramanand Gupta Aged About 52 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer At Creda, Head Office Raipur, R/o Mogra 78, Block- B, Talpuri International Colony, Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Deepak Sahu S/o Kedarnath Sahu Aged About 39 Years Assistant Engineer (Ae), Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (Creda), District Office Janjgir- Champa, R/o House No. A-35, Dream City, Near Rama Green City, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Savita Kashyap W/o Gopi Kashyap Aged About 40 Years Assistant Engineer (Ae), Creda, Regional Office Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, R/o Lal Bagh Amaguda, Behind Durga Mandir, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.30 12:11:25 +0530 2 3 - Sana Parveen D/o Ekhlaque Ahmed Aged About 34 Years Assistant Engineer (Ae), Creda, Regional Office Bilaspur, R/o Barkat, Ward No. 25, Sharda Nagar, Near Sai Mandir And Magneto Mall, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gopi Kashyap S/o Balram Kashyap Aged About 40 Years Assistant Engineer, Creda, District Office Bastar, Chhattisgarh. R/o Lal Bagh Amaguda, Behind Durga Mandir, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Akash Sharma S/o Ashok Sharma Aged About 35 Years Assistant Engineer (Ae), Creda, Head Office Raipur, R/o House No. 10, Phase 1, Mahadev Vatika Colony, Amleshwar, Post Amleshwar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ravikant Bharadwaj S/o Late S. S. Bharadwaj Aged About 42 Years Assistant Engineer (Ae), Creda, District Office Narayanpur, R/o Smriti Kunj, Jawahar Nagar, Ward Metaguda, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Ataql Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 8 - Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (Creda), Through The Chief Executive Officer, Near Energy Education Part, Vip Road, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 9 - Chief Engineer (Administration) Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (Creda), Through The Chief Executive Officer, Near Energy Education Part, Vip Road, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 6 For Respondent No. 8 and 9 : : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 6 and Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8 and 9. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1827/2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners has been Allowed. Thereafter, the writ appellants prefer the instant appeal before this Hon'ble Court with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that, in view of the above, the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be set aside, and the writ petition filed by the original petitioners may kindly be dismissed affirming the notional seniority of the appellants.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were initially appointed as Junior Engineers/Sub-Engineers on contractual basis in April, 2005 and were regularized with effect from 01.04.2008. Pursuant to the amendment in the CREDA Service Rules on 09.07.2012, the qualifying service for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was reduced from eight years to five years, making the appellants eligible for promotion from 01.01.2013, prior to the direct appointment of the writ petitioners as Assistant Engineers on 25.04.2013. However, due to the failure of the authorities to convene the Departmental Promotion 4 Committee in time, the appellants were promoted only on 11.02.2015. Though they had earlier approached this Court in 2013 for consideration of their promotion, the writ petition was disposed of as premature on the basis of an incorrect stand taken by the authorities regarding the eligibility criteria. Subsequently, upon denial of notional seniority, the appellants filed W.P.(S) No. 6272/2019, wherein this Court directed CREDA to consider their grievance. In compliance, a duly constituted committee granted them notional seniority with effect from 01.01.2013 by order dated 26.10.2019, followed by a revised seniority list dated 13.02.2020. The learned Single Judge, however, by the impugned order dated 17.04.2026, quashed the said order and revised seniority list, giving rise to the present writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellants became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 01.01.2013, consequent upon the amendment of the CREDA Service Rules in 2012 reducing the qualifying service from eight years to five years, much prior to the appointment of the writ petitioners by direct recruitment on 25.04.2013. The delay in convening the Departmental Promotion Committee was solely attributable to the administrative lapse of CREDA and cannot be permitted to prejudice the appellants' accrued right to be considered for promotion. The grant of notional seniority from the date of eligibility was merely a corrective measure to rectify the administrative error and was based upon the recommendation of a duly constituted committee as well as the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in the earlier round of litigation. The learned Single Judge erred in treating the case as one of 5 retrospective promotion, whereas the appellants have only been granted notional seniority without any retrospective financial benefits. The impugned judgment further overlooks the statutory provisions contained in the CREDA Service Rules empowering the competent authority to rectify seniority anomalies, ignores the settled legal position that administrative delay cannot deprive an employee of his rightful seniority, and fails to distinguish the judgments relied upon by the writ petitioners, which are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Single Judge also failed to consider that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy already invoked and withdrawn by the petitioners, suffered from delay and suppression of material facts, including the committee report dated 15.02.2016, and was filed despite the petitioners being fully aware that the appellants had acquired eligibility for promotion prior to their own appointment. In these circumstances, the impugned order has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice by perpetuating the administrative illegality committed by CREDA in filling promotion quota vacancies through direct recruitment, thereby depriving the appellants of their legitimate seniority and promotional prospects, and therefore deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 to 6, would submit that appellants were promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer only on 11- 2-2015, as such, they have to be treated to be born in the cadre of Assistant Engineer with effect from 11-2-2015, whereas the Respondent No. 1 to 6 were appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 25-4- 2013, as such, they are admittedly and 6 undisputedly seniors to the appellants on the post of Assistant Engineer, therefore merely on the ground that the alleged vacancy was there since the year 2008, appellants cannot claim seniority with effect from 01-01-2013. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar State Electricity Board and others v. Dharamdeo Das (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768) to contend that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference in the present writ appeal. It is submitted that though the appellants were initially appointed as Sub-Engineers on contractual basis and were subsequently regularized with effect from 01.04.2008, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer only on 11.02.2015, whereas Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had already been appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Engineers on 23.04.2013 and were duly placed above the appellants in the gradation list. It is further submitted that the subsequent grant of notional seniority to the appellants with retrospective effect from 01.01.2013 was contrary to the applicable service rules and settled principles of service jurisprudence, as retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee before he is borne in the cadre, particularly when the rules do not expressly provide for such benefit. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the impugned orders granting retrospective seniority were unsustainable in law and were also passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the 7 affected employees were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before their seniority was altered to their prejudice. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment is a well-reasoned and self- contained order based on the applicable statutory provisions and binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In compliance with the said judgment, the answering respondents have already restored the seniority position by issuing consequential orders dated 04.05.2026 and 19.06.2026. Accordingly, the present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be affirmed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, as the circular/notification dated 25.08.2016 issued by Coal India Limited granting five years' age relaxation for direct recruitment to the posts of Mining Sirdar and Overman was expressly intended to be a one-time measure. It was contended that the notification itself stipulated that the benefit of relaxation was to be implemented through a recruitment process to be notified and completed within one year, and, therefore, the said policy had exhausted itself long before issuance of Advertisement No. 166 dated 08.04.2026. Learned counsel further submitted that fixation of eligibility conditions, including the prescription of age limit and grant of relaxation, falls exclusively within the domain of the employer and is a matter of policy, in which judicial interference is unwarranted unless shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. It was further contended that the appellants had participated in the recruitment process conducted by SECL in the year 2023 and, 8 therefore, cannot now seek extension of the one-time relaxation after having availed the earlier opportunity. Learned counsel also submitted that the recruitment process pursuant to the impugned advertisement has substantially progressed and the written examination has already been conducted. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.04.2026. 9. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 17.04.2026 observed that :- “Discussion and Analysis 22. Thus, from the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, it is quite vivid that no seniority can be granted with retrospective effect when the employee is not even borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validly in the meantime and if applicable service rule does not provide for grant of retrospective seniority. 23. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that respondents No.4 to 6, who were appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer initially on contractual basis, were regularised in service on 1-4-2008 and thereafter, they had completed their probation period of two years on 14-6- 2010, however, the petitioners were directly appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on 25-4-2013 and respondents No.4 to 6 were promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer on 11-2-2015, as such, they will be treated to be borne in the cadre of Assistant Engineer on 11-2-2015 and thereafter, order has been passed by 9 respondent No.2 granting notional seniority to As such, respondents No.4 to 6 with effect from 1-1-2013. respondents No.4 to 6 were granted retrospective seniority from the date when they have not borne on the cadre on the post of Assistant Engineer and more so applicable service rules do not provide for grant of retrospective seniority. This would adversely affect the petitioners who are direct recruits on the post of Assistant Engineer. As such, in light of the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that the order passed by respondent No.2 granting seniority to respondents No.4 to 6 over and above the petitioners is clearly impermissible in law and is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as without affording opportunity of hearing the order impugned Annexure P-1 was passed. 24. In view of the above, the submissions raised on behalf of the private respondents and the official respondents that notional seniority has rightly been granted to respondents No.4 to 6 with effect from 1-1-2013, the enquiry report dated 15-2-2016 of the committee has not been subjected to challenge by the petitioners and the writ petition suffers from delay and laches, deserve to be rejected, and the case laws cited on behalf of the private respondents are quite distinguishable on facts to the present case. Relief and Cost 25. Since the order impugned is not only in violation of the principles of law, but also impermissible in law to grant retrospective seniority over and above the petitioners who are direct recruits on the post of Assistant Engineers, the order impugned dated 26-10-2019 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed and the order dated 13-2-2020 (Annexure P-2) is also hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue fresh seniority list giving the petitioners their due seniority over and above respondents No.4 to 6. 10 26. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 10. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge, we observed that the learned Single Judge, after considering Rule 26.1 of the CREDA Service Rules, 2004 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunaina Sharma v. State of Jammu and Kashmir1, Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh2, Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam3 and other binding precedents, held that seniority is to be determined from the date an employee is actually borne on the cadre and retrospective seniority cannot be granted unless expressly authorized by the applicable service rules. The learned Single Judge further considered that appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer only on 11.02.2015, whereas the Respondent No. 1 to 6 had already been directly appointed on the said post on 25.04.2013, and, therefore, appellants could not have been granted notional seniority with effect from 01.01.2013, i.e., from a date when they had not entered the cadre of Assistant Engineer. The learned Single Judge also held that grant of such retrospective seniority was contrary to Rule 26.1 of the CREDA Service Rules, 2004 and the settled principles governing seniority, as it adversely affected the rights of the direct recruits who had already validly entered the cadre, and that the impugned order had also been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Respondent No. 1 to 6. Accordingly, holding that the grant of retrospective/notional seniority was impermissible in law and violative of the principles of natural 1 (2018) 11 SCC 413 2 (2011) 3 SCC 267 3 (2022) 6 SCC 105 11 justice, the learned Single Judge quashed the orders dated 26.10.2019 and 13.02.2020 and directed the competent authority to prepare a fresh seniority list by placing the Respondent No. 1 to 6 above present appellants. 11. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika