1 / 5 CGHC010312542024 2026:CGHC:38945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5737 of 2024 1 - Rajesh Kumar Chandrawanshi S/o Late Shri Anuj Ram Chandravanshi, Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 563, Sapphire Green Phase 2, Near Vidhansabha, Ring Road No.3, Baronda, Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Under Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Special Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shri Rajesh Kumar Rathore S/o Late Shri A.V. Rathore, Aged About 52 Years Presently Serving As Additional Director, Beej Avam Krishi Vikash Nigam Government Of Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, GA AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.09.03 17:46:44 +0530 2 / 5 For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate with Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 02/09/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2024, issued by the Under Secretary, Agriculture Development and Farmer Welfare and Bio-Technology Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, cancelling the promotion of the Petitioner from the Post of Joint Director to the post of Additional Director, and Promoting Private Respondent, Shri Rajesh Kumar Rathore; 2. Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner on the post of Additional Director, Beej avam Krishi Vikash Nigam Government of Chhattisgarh, with all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay, allowances, and other service benefits, with effect from 14.12.2022; 3. In furtherance Direct the Respondents to consider and count the services of the petitioner from the date 14.12.2022 which he initially promoted to the post of additional Director Agriculture as intact and consider it as continues services on the post of Additional Director, Beej avam Krishi Vikash Nigam Government of Chhattisgarhwithout there being any effect of impugned order dated 30.08.2024 Annexure P/1; 4. Grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem 3 / 5 just, fair, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) vide order dated 14.12.2022 the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Additional Director (Agriculture) and in compliance of the said order he has joined the duties. However, all of a sudden, by the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) the promotion of the petitioner has been cancelled and reverted him to the post of Joint Director (Agriculture). In the same order, in place of the petitioner, the respondent No.5 has been promoted to the post of Additional Director (Agriculture). The said order was passed on the basis of representation made by Respondent No.5. He submits that before passing the impugned order, petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing or even at the time when the representation of the Respondent No.5 was decided, the petitioner was not heard. Learned counsel further submits that there are total 08 sanctioned post of Additional Director Agriculture in the respondent department out of which only 03 persons have been working and 05 posts are still lying vacant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents that during pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has retired from service on 30/11/2025 and presently the grievance of the petitioner survives only with regard to his alleged reversion/demotion pursuant to the 4 / 5 impugned order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel submits that by the said order, while cancelling the earlier promotion order dated 14.12.2022 issued in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.5/ Shri Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Joint Director (Agriculture), has been promoted to the post of Additional Director (Agriculture). Learned counsel further submits that since the entire effect and operation of Annexure P-1 has been stayed by the order of this Court dated 17/09/2024, respondent No.5 has been deprived of discharging duties on the promotional post despite having been found suitable. However, learned counsel for the State fairly admitted the fact that before passing the impugned order no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. It is an admitted fact that prior to the issuance of the order of demotion against the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and no notice was issued to him. 6. It is trite that whenever an administrative action entails adverse civil consequences, strict adherence to the principles of natural justice is indispensable unless specifically excluded by statute. A recovery order affecting the pecuniary rights of an employee undoubtedly visits him with civil consequences and, therefore, cannot be sustained if passed in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Compliance with the principles of natural justice 5 / 5 is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 30/08/2024, insofar as it relates to the demotion of the petitioner from the post of Additional Director (Agriculture) to the post of Joint Director (Agriculture), is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State to pass a fresh order within a period of 30 days, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5. 8. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Gowri/ Amardeep