1 WPS No.4368 of 2026 CGHC010194982026 2026:CGHC:36302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Order Reserved on 03-08-2026) (Final Order Delivered on 14-08-2026) (Final Order Uploaded on 14-08-2026) WPS No. 4368 of 2026 Dhan Singh Patel S/o Late Shri Ugrasen Patel Aged About 67 Years R/o Present Address Ashok Nagar, In Front Of Harsh Heavens, Chantidih, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Department of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Sector-19 North Block, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Departmental Promotional Committee Through Its President Department of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Sharada Verma Additional Director Through Commissioner Department of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.14 16:14:50 +0530 2 WPS No.4368 of 2026 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For State/ Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) CAV Order 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is retired on 30.06.2020 from service on attaining the age of superannuation, herein is questioning the legality and validity of the action of the respondents in not opening the sealed cover prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 17.01.2006 and the Review DPC held on 07.07.2025. The petitioner further seeks retrospective promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner with effect from 17.01.2006 together with all consequential monetary benefits, re-fixation of seniority over respondent No.5 Smt. Sharada Verma and consideration for further promotional posts. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Project Administrator on 04.08.1988 and was subsequently promoted as Assistant Commissioner with effect from 01.07.1996. His seniority was determined by order dated 13.10.2014 placing him below Shri N.R. Sahu and above Smt. Sharada Verma. The petitioner asserts that the DPC convened on 17.01.2006 considered eligible officers for 3 WPS No.4368 of 2026 promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner. However, instead of granting promotion, the recommendation pertaining to the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover on the premise that departmental proceedings were pending against him and his junior has been promoted. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently all the departmental proceedings either culminated in his exoneration or the punishment orders were set aside by this Court. It is pleaded that one departmental enquiry, wherein punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect had been imposed by order dated 13.12.2011, was set aside by this Court in WPS No.3479 of 2012 vide order dated 30.07.2018 and upon remand the department passed order dated 14.03.2020 granting the withheld increments, thereby exonerating him. The petitioner further states that another departmental enquiry relating to suspension was closed by order dated 25.09.2008 and the suspension period was directed to be treated as duty. According to the petitioner, the punishment imposed pursuant to order dated 26.03.2013 in another enquiry was also set aside by this Court in WPS No.4443 of 2015 vide order dated 24.07.2024 and the consequential recovery order dated 31.01.2022 too was quashed in WPS No.3578 of 2022. It is thus contended that after all these proceedings culminated in his favour, there remained no legal impediment for opening the sealed cover and granting him promotion with retrospective effect from 17.01.2006. 4 WPS No.4368 of 2026 4. The petitioner further pleads that despite specific directions issued by this Court on 17.06.2026 requiring the respondents to disclose whether any departmental enquiry was pending against him on the relevant date and the reasons for keeping the recommendations in a sealed cover, the respondents have failed to produce any material justifying their action. It is submitted that the Review DPC held on 07.07.2025 again kept his recommendation in a sealed cover without any legal basis, thereby perpetuating an arbitrary denial of promotion. The petitioner, therefore, submits that he is entitled to opening of the sealed cover, grant of retrospective promotion with all consequential benefits and re- determination of seniority over Smt. Sharada Verma. 5. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was denied the benefit of promotion on account of the departmental proceedings which had been initiated against him and his case was accordingly kept in sealed cover. It is submitted that the proceedings which were being relied upon as an impediment to the consideration of the petitioner have subsequently culminated and, in respect of the adverse orders passed therein, the petitioner has succeeded before this Court. It is, therefore, contended that there is no subsisting impediment for opening the sealed cover containing the result of the Review DPC. (b) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the earlier litigation pursued by the petitioner in relation to the departmental proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier 5 WPS No.4368 of 2026 approached this Court challenging the orders of punishment passed against him and the orders adverse to the petitioner have subsequently been set aside. (c) In particular, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had earlier filed WPS No.4443 of 2015, challenging the order dated 26.03.2013 passed in the departmental proceedings as well as the consequential appellate order dated 29.07.2015. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2024, whereby the aforesaid orders were set aside. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner thereafter challenged the consequential order of recovery in WPS No.3578 of 2022. From the order passed therein, it is evident that the recovery was founded upon the departmental proceedings and the orders which had already been set aside by this Court. The said proceedings also culminated in favour of the petitioner and the recovery could not be sustained. The petitioner has also relied upon his earlier proceedings arising out of another departmental action, wherein the order of punishment had been challenged before this Court and the adverse action ultimately did not survive. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the earlier departmental proceedings cannot now be treated as a subsisting impediment for consideration of the petitioner for promotion. (d) It is further submitted that a Review DPC was convened on 07.07.2025 and the result of consideration of the petitioner has been 6 WPS No.4368 of 2026 kept in a sealed-cover envelope. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the subsequent developments and the orders passed by this Court setting aside the adverse orders, the respondents have not opened the sealed cover. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner had faced departmental proceedings and that the competent authority had taken the proceedings into consideration while dealing with his service career. It is further submitted that the Review DPC has already been held and the result thereof has been kept in sealed cover in accordance with the applicable procedure. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, the question which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts of the present case, the respondents can continue to withhold the result of the Review DPC dated 07.07.2025 in sealed cover when the departmental proceedings/orders which had formed the basis for withholding the promotional benefit have subsequently ceased to operate. 8. The object of the sealed-cover procedure is to ensure that an employee does not derive an advantage in promotion while disciplinary or criminal proceedings, which legally constitute an impediment to such consideration, are pending. The sealed-cover procedure, however, cannot be permitted to operate indefinitely when the very proceedings on account of which the employee's case was withheld have 7 WPS No.4368 of 2026 subsequently culminated. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. K.V. Jankiraman and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 109, has explained the circumstances in which the sealed-cover procedure can legitimately be resorted to and has emphasized that the employee's right to consideration for promotion cannot be indefinitely defeated merely because proceedings had, at an earlier point of time, been contemplated or initiated against him. 10. In the present case, the aforesaid principles assume significance because the record demonstrates that the petitioner has not remained silent against the departmental actions initiated against him. On the contrary, he had challenged the adverse orders before this Court and has succeeded in the proceedings referred to hereinabove. More importantly, the order dated 26.03.2013, which was relied upon against the petitioner, was itself challenged by him in WPS No.4443 of 2015 and the said writ petition was allowed on 24.07.2024. The consequential appellate order dated 29.07.2015 also did not survive. Consequently, the very foundation of the subsequent recovery action was rendered non-existent. 11. This Court, while considering the petitioner's challenge to the recovery in WPS No.3578 of 2022, also noticed that the recovery order had been passed on the basis of the departmental proceedings and the orders which had subsequently been set aside. The petitioner, thus, cannot be 8 WPS No.4368 of 2026 treated, for the purpose of his promotional consideration, as if the said adverse orders continue to remain operative. It is also relevant that the respondents have already convened a Review DPC on 07.07.2025. Therefore, there is no requirement for this Court to itself assess the petitioner's suitability for promotion. The assessment of suitability is within the domain of the duly constituted DPC. What requires consideration is only whether the result of such consideration can continue to remain withheld in sealed cover in the circumstances obtaining today. 12. In the opinion of this Court, once the adverse orders which had constituted the basis for withholding the petitioner's promotional consideration have been set aside and there is no material placed before this Court to demonstrate the existence of any other subsisting proceeding which would legally justify continuation of the sealed- cover procedure, the respondents cannot indefinitely withhold the result of the Review DPC. 13. The fact that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation does not render the issue academic. If the petitioner was otherwise found suitable for promotion from an earlier date, such promotion may have a direct bearing upon his pay fixation and consequently upon his pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioner, therefore, would be entitled to consideration of the result of the Review DPC in accordance with law. 9 WPS No.4368 of 2026 14. It is well settled that the question of a retired employee to be promoted does not arise. The only exception is that if such an employee was considered along with his juniors by the DPC, sealed cover procedure was followed in respect of him, and on opening of sealed cover, if it emerges that he was found fit; and his junior was promoted with effect from any date anterior to his retirement, he is also entitled for promotion on notional basis (See the decision of the Delhi High Court: Ram Singh v Union of India, AIR OnLine 2020 DEL 977) 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to open the sealed-cover envelope containing the result/recommendation of the Review DPC held on 07.07.2025 in respect of the petitioner. In case, upon opening the sealed cover, the petitioner is found to have been recommended and declared suitable for promotion, the respondents shall extend to him the benefit of such promotion notionally from the date from which he would have been entitled to such promotion, had his case not been kept in sealed cover, in accordance with the applicable service rules. Since the petitioner has already retired from service, the promotion shall be treated as notional, and his pay shall accordingly be re-fixed for the purpose of determining his retiral and pensionary benefits. Thereafter, the respondents shall recalculate and re-fix the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner on the basis of such notional promotion and shall pass consequential oders in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the 10 WPS No.4368 of 2026 date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu