1 CGHC010355932021 2026:CGHC:38701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 195 of 2022 1 - Pranav Kumar Bhattacharya S/o P.K. Bhattacharya Aged About 50 Years Presently Posted And Working Assistant (Grade-Iii) Patna, Block Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Koriya, District Koriya Baikunthpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - The Additional Collector, District Koriya Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - The Deputy Collector, District Koriya Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner/s : Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “a. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. b. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to grant the benefit of promotion to the petitioner with effect from 02/05/2013 as the same benefit has been granted to the similarly situated employees. c. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to pay the Arrears/Difference of pay of the promotional post with effect from 02/05/2013 as well as the salary from 01/04/2015 to 31/09/2015. d. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III in the year 2006 at the District Headquarters, District Koriya. On 28.4.2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had taken leave without permission on several occasions. Thereafter, respondent No.5 issued the seniority list of Class-III employees, showing their seniority as on 1.4.2013. In the said seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.6. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, persons who were placed below him in the seniority list were promoted to the post of Grade-II vide promotion order dated 2.5.2013. 3 3. On 10.4.2015, the Collector, District Koriya, held that since the allegations against the petitioner were not of a serious nature, the petitioner was, on sympathetic grounds, reinstated to the post of Assistant Grade-III and posted at the Block Office, Bharatpur, District Koriya. Thereafter, on 5.10.2015, the petitioner was again served with a letter stating that, after joining his duties on 17.7.2015 at the Block Office, Bharatpur, he had once again remained absent from duty. 4. On 29.1.2018, respondent No.4, without assigning any sufficient reason, placed the petitioner under suspension. Thereafter, on 5.4.2019, respondent No.4 passed an order after completion of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. In the said order, it was recorded that the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report and had concluded that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Accordingly, a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, who was pleased to set aside the order of suspension, and the petitioner was once again reinstated vide order dated 5.7.2019. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the year 2013, although the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened, the name of the petitioner was not considered as he was under suspension at that point in time. He would further contend that, in the year 2023, again the name of the petitioner was not considered in the absence of ACRs. He would argue that, as the petitioner has completed almost 20 years of service and has not been 4 considered for promotion to the next higher post, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to convene a DPC and take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that, in the year 2023, the name of the petitioner was not considered as a departmental enquiry was pending against him. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. As the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III in the year 2006 and has completed 20 years of service, without making any observation on the merits of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to convene a DPC and consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the relevant post of Assistant Grade-II strictly in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s), this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi