1 2026:CGHC:7123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3200 of 2024 1 - Wahid Ali S/o Late Shir Mir Abbas Ali, Aged About 73 Years Retired Ranger, R/o House No. 89, J.P.Vihar Colony, Mangla Road, Mangla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin 495001 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492002 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Aranya Bhawan North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Pin 492101. 3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bilaspur Forest Conservancy, Sindhi Colony Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin 495001 4 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Kanker Forest Conservancy, Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, (C.G.), Pin 494334. --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhuday Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 09/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 To call records of the case that reflects the reasons. 10.2 Kindly, direct respondents to add the petitioner’s name to the notional seniority list of Deputy Ranger BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.17 10:52:29 +0530 2 Post and re-determine his seniority with effect from 21.05.1987 in parity. 10.3 Kindly please direct respondents to consider granting a notional promotion to the Forest Ranger post with retrospective effect from 26.06.1996 to the petitioner in parity with others, regarding pension and retirement benefits. 10.4 Kindly grant any other relief the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Forester as early in the year 1971 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. In the year 1997 some amendment was made in rules and the seniority of the State cadre Forester is to be maintained circle wise. Some of the similarly situated employees have approached State Administrative Tribunal seeking that they have not been considered for promotion. The matter traveled up to Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the grievance of petitioner therein and remitted back the case to the High Court observing that “since we are not quite clear with regard to rules regarding selection and fixation of seniority, and as we are not getting assistance in that regard, we set-aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh, with request to the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably within six months.” He contended that thereafter, Division Bench of the High Court has passed orders directing the State authorities to redetermine the seniority of the Deputy Rangers and Forest Rangers considering the fact that Foresters have retired and also directed for re-fixation of the seniority in the rank of Deputy 3 Ranger and Forest Rangers and further observed that the said re- fixation will be for fixation of pension and other retiral dues only. He also contended that one A.P. Dubey, Deputy Ranger has also filed the proceedings before the Tribunal, which was transferred to this Court and it was registered as WPS No. 4765 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed, directed to consider the case of petitioner therein for promotion and to grant all consequential benefits if the petitioner therein founds fit for promotion, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for similar benefits. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that petitioner has not approached this Court within time. Petitioner has filed this petition after lapse of long time. He however submits that the order passed in writ petition was challenged by the State in Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No.788 of 2018, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has modified the order passed in writ petition and the direction for giving consequential benefits including monetary benefit was quashed and further clarified to re-fix of seniority promotion as well as pay for calculating the pensionary benefits and retiral dues only and not for monetary benefits. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Appointment of petitioner as Forester in the year 1971 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that after amendment, many of the Foresters and similarly situated employees have earlier filed original application before the State Administrative Tribunal. The case traveled up to the Hon’ble Supreme 4 Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the special leave petition remitted back the case to the High Court for its reconsideration afresh and the High Court while allowing the writ petition have observed that the seniority is to be re-fixed and the benefits of re- fixation of seniority, pay fixation to be made for the purpose of calculating the retiral dues. In Writ Appeal No. 788 of 2018, Division Bench of this Court has observed thus :- “19. The appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh to that extent succeeds. The order giving a direction for giving consequential benefits including monitory benefits stands quashed. However, the Respondent are directed to consider promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger and Ranger in terms of the direction of the learned Single Judge contained in paragraph 27, which read as under: “27. This Court hopes that taking into consideration that the petitioner has been fighting for justice since last 15 years, the respondent shall do well to hold review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observation made herein, positively within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order so that the petitioner may not have to face a situation where even after an order in his favour he has left without any fruits of the same in his lifetime. The direction of this Court will have to be complied with positively within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 20. Yet another question which is sought to be raised by the counsel on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh is as to whose obligation and duty it becomes to settle 5 the outstanding dues etc. in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. 21. That question is being left open. It will be governed by Section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. 22. Before parting, it is clarified that since the private Respondent retired in the year 2007 from the newly created State of Chhattisgarh, the obligation to re-fix the such promotions as well as his pay etc. for calculation of pensionary benefits and retrial dues, will have to be worked out by the State of Chhattisgarh and if need be, appropriate correspondence and communication be also made with the State of Madhya Pradesh thereafter.” 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to allow this writ petition to the extent as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 788 of 2018. 7. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 788 of 2018 and if petitioner is found suitable for promotion, then proper workout shall be done as observed in the order passed in WA No.788 of 2025 within period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter to refix the pay and workout the retiral dues and pensionary benefits. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Balram