1 2026:CGHC:7604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8585 of 2023 Ram Kumar Dhruw S/o Late Shri P.R. Dhruw Aged About 64 Years Retired Under Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, R/o B-1, Maruti Residency, Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary North Block, Sector-19 Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Shri Vikas Dubey, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Dy AG. For Respondent No.2 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/02/2026 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed against the inaction on the part of Respondent No.2 as he has failed to convene the AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.13 09:59:34 +0530 2 promotion process in time and committed inordinate delay in granting promotion. 2. Petitioner by way of this petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 for granting promotion to the petitioner on the post of Under Secretary w.e.f. year 2010 with all consequential benefits. iii. To kindly direct the respondents to provide all monetary benefit, seniority, consequential promotions, arrears of salary etc. in a time frame work w.e.f. year 2010 up to retirement date of the petitioner. iv. To kindly direct the respondents to make re- fixation of all post retiral benefits to the petitioner accordance with the law as consequential benefits by treating him as under secretary w.e.f. year 2010. v. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 21/4/1981 in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, Indore (M.P.) subsequently 3 promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk on 11/3/1994 and further promoted on the post on Assistant Grade 1 on 5/7/2000. The services of the petitioner govern by Madhya Pradesh Secretariat Service Rules, 1976 (in short Rules, 1976). The new state of "Chhattisgarh" came in existence from reformation of the State of Madhya Pradesh on 1/11/2000 thereby the bifurcation of employees working at Madhya Pradesh was also done. The setup of Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur was sanctioned by respondent no. 1 on 6/7/2002. That, the petitioner was allotted Chhattisgarh State and posted at Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur from Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission by order dated 26/3/2003.That, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Section Officer on 18/7/2005. It is pertinent to mention that as per Rules, 1976 the post of Under Secretary is to be filled up by promotion from the post of Section Officer. The criteria prescribed for promotion on the post of Under Secretary is that the person who has completed of 5 years of service on the post of Section Officer shall be entitled for promotion on the post of Under Secretary. But in the new setup of Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued by the respondent no.1 on 6/7/2002 the condition was imposed in clause 3 that the post of Under Secretary is to be filled up by way of deputation from the persons belong to State Administrative Services. It is settled law that the benefit of employees provided under service rules cannot be reduced or degrade by way of new 4 terms and conditions therefore the respondent no. 1 has issued an order on 1/6/2005 thereby exempted the condition of deputation for those employees who are working by transfer from Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and directed to not affect their promotion. That, after completion of 5 year service on the post of Section Officer the petitioner was eligible for promotion on the post of Under Secretary in year 2010. As per order dated 1/6/2005 the deputation clause was not binding in the case of the petitioner because the petitioner was transferred from Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission therefore the respondent no. 2 ought to have considered the promotion of the petitioner on the post of under secretary in year 2010. It is pertinent to mention that the Chhattisgarh Civil Service Promotion Rules, 2003 is applicable in matter of promotions of the employees of respondent no. 3. The rule 6 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service Promotion Rules, 2003 clearly provides that the proceedings and meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee shall be convened every year. A bare perusal of the rule 6 of Rules, 2003 clearly shows that convening DPC for promotion every year is a mandatory provision but the respondent no. 2 failed to perform their duty and did not convened the DPC. Therefore the petitioner has submitted several representations before the respondent no. 2 for granting promotion by convening DPC. That, despite repeated request the respondent no. 2 has not taken any steps towards promotion as per rules, 2003 however sent a proposal to the respondent no. 1 5 on 27/8/2010 seeking permission for relaxation for promotion on the post of Under Secretary treating the same as for the post of deputation. It is pertinent to mention that the relaxation for promotion of the employees came from Madhya Pradesh was already granted vide order dated 1/6/2005 but the respondent no. 2 without application of mind sent the proposal and thereby hanged the promotion without any justified reasons. The petitioner has again submitted reminder/representations before the respondent no. 2 on 22/11/2010. The respondent no. 2 has not taken any decision upon the promotion and only forwarded the same to the respondent no. 1 on 03/12/2010 in a mechanical manner. That the petitioner has continued submitted his representation to the respondent no. 2 thereby requested for taking steps for his promotion. But no step for promotion was taken by the respondent no. 2. Though the petitioner was entitled for promotion on the post of Under Secretary also that the order dated 1/6/2005 was clear that the post of Under Secretary can be filled up by promotion instead of deputation as the petitioner was joined in Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission by transfer from Madhya Pradesh and his interest was protected for promotion but the respondent no. 2 was failed to consider the case in its true letter and spirit. That, without application of mind and deprive the petitioner from his legitimate claim the respondent no. 2 has appointed officer on deputation in those period. One Mr. M. K. Mandhani was working as under Secretary on deputation from 6 State Administrative Service. Subsequently on 27/7/2013 Mr. M.K. Mandhani was transferred as Additional Collector, Balrampur (Sarguja) thereby the post of Under Secretary was again become vacant. But the respondent no. 2 without application of mind sent a proposal to respondent no. 1 to appoint again one officer from State Administrative Services on deputation rather than appointing the petitioner from promotion. It is also pertinent to mention that despite knowing all the facts and provisions the respondent no. 2 has again submitted a reminder on 13/9/2013 to the respondent no. 1 seeking appointment of an officer on the post of Under Secretary. The respondent no. 2 ought to have convened promotion proceedings to appoint an Under Secretary by way of promotion accordance with the order dated 1/6/2005 which the respondent no. 2 has willfully not done so. That, being aggrieved the petitioner has approached to the Hon'ble Court vide WPS No. 2711/2014 wherein Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order on 11/8/2015 thereby directed the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate steps for promotion accordance with law. That, after interference of the Hon'ble Court the respondent no. 2 convened the DPC and granted promotion to the petitioner on the post of Under Secretary vide order dated 6/10/2015. That, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was entitled for promotion since year 2010 but without any justified reason the respondent no. 2 was kept the action in abeyance. The delay in promotion in part of respondent no. 2 is unjust, unfair, arbitrary and contrary to fair 7 play in action in administration of a welfare state therefore illegal. The respondent no. 2 ought to have grant promotion w.e.f. 2010 but the respondent no. 2 has passed a simple order of promotion ignoring the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Therefore the petitioner has preferred representations to the respondent no. 2 from grant of promotion from year 2010 and it's consequential benefits. That the respondent has not taken a single steps for considering the case of the petitioner and after sometime the petitioner has attained his superannuation and retired from service on 30/6/2021. The claim of the petitioner for granting benefit of promotion from 2010 was not considered during his service tenure and still the grievance of the petitioner is un-redressed. That, during the service tenure the respondent no. 2 has orally informed the reason behind the not taking steps upon representation that the relaxation given in 1/6/2005 was only for a one time arrangement therefore the promotion could not be granted in both two posts of Under Secretary. Earlier one Under Secretary was already working namely Mr. J. S. Gond by virtue of promotion order dated 25/7/2005 and the same was vacant on 2015 therefore the petitioner could not be granted promotion as on non availability of post. But the conclusion made by the respondent no. 2 was incorrect that the effect of letter 1/6/2005 was only for one time. That, recently the respondent no. 1 has issued a letter to respondent no. 3 on 28/7/2021 thereby it is informed that the employees who were transferred from Mandya Pradesh Public 8 Service Commission and joined at Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, they would be protected by their old recruitment rules and the post of deputation shall not come in way of their promotion and the order dated 01/6/2005 would be applicable on their promotion cases. That, the letter dated 28/7/2021 clearly shows that the petitioner was entitled to get promotion on post of Under Secretary w.e.f. year 2010 by providing benefit of order dated 1/6/2005 because the petitioner was a employee who was transferred from erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and his services ought to have been protected by old service rules. But due to fault and misinterpretation of the respondent no. 2 the promotion could not be granted to the petitioner in time and the post was engaged by deputation by depriving the petitioner from his promotion. That, as per service rule 6(4) of Promotion Rules, 2003 the respondent no.2 was duty bound to convene the meeting of Department Promotion Committee in year 2010 but the respondent no. 2 failed to performed it's statutory duties which was mandatory in nature. The petitioner should not be compelled to suffer for the illegal act and delay committed by the respondent no.2. Therefore the petitioner entitled to get all consequential benefits by getting promotion w.e.f. 2010. Hence this petition. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the representation (Annexure P/15) filed by 9 the petitioner in respect of his promotion, in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that he has no objection in respect of the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities specifically Respondent No.2 to consider the representation (Annexure P/15) preferred by the petitioner in respect of his promotion and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of 60 days. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash