Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
CGHC010026782016
2026:CGHC:43308
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5246 of 2016 Reserved for orders on 02/09/2026
Order delivered on 06/10/2026 Brijesh Kumar Patoria S/o Late Shri K. L. Patoria, Aged About 50 Years R/o Office Of The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh 2 - The Engineer In Chief, Office Of Engineer In Chief Sirpur Bhawan Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramavatar Diwakar R/o S.D.O. Bagicha, Public Works Department, Sub Division, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For Intervenors : Ms. Anju Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.10.06 17:08:37 +0530
2 Hon'ble
Shri R
avindra Kumar Agrawal
, Judge
C.A.V. Order
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the
order dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure P-1), whereby the seniority of the petitioner has been altered, as well as the consequential order dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure P-2), by which the petitioner's seniority was initially revised. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders on the ground that the alteration of his seniority is contrary to the applicable service rules and has adversely affected his service rights and has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“Petitioner pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 10.1 To issue suitable writ / directions for setting a side order dated 15.7.2016 i.e P-1 and order dated 09.12.2015 P-2. 10.2 To grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Sub Engineer by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1993. He thereafter served as Sub Engineer in various districts and, immediately before the reorganisation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, was posted in District Jagdalpur, which subsequently fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh. At the time of reorganisation, the petitioner
3 opted for allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh; however, by final allocation order dated 09.09.2002, he was allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred WP No. 2486/2002 before this Court and also submitted an application dated 16.10.2002 seeking mutual allocation with one Malay Kumar Shrivastava, who was serving in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.04.2003, with the direction that the persons who are not relieved shall not be relieved and shall be allowed to continue at their place of posting till the decision of the Central Government, and the person who has been relieved shall make a representation to the Central Government and the Central Government shall take a decision on those representations as it deems fit. Whereafter, pursuant to the policy of the Government of India dated 01.05.2003 concerning mutual exchange, the petitioner's application was considered and, in January 2005, he was finally allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, whereas Malay Kumar Shrivastava was allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. 3.
After his allocation to Chhattisgarh, the petitioner was directed to submit a fresh joining by communication dated 11.04.2005. Since his name had earlier been omitted from the gradation list of Sub Engineers of the State of Chhattisgarh on account of his allocation to Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner represented for restoration of his seniority commensurate with the service rendered by him. By order dated 12.07.2005, he was placed at Serial No. 479-A in the gradation list, and his seniority was fixed with effect from 01.04.2003. The
4 petitioner thereafter represented that his seniority ought to have been reckoned from 01.11.2002, pursuant to which his seniority was subsequently re-fixed by the competent authority. The petitioner was thereafter considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer by order dated 01.03.2007, with his promotion year indicated as 2003. Having completed the requisite period of service, he was further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer by order dated 19.09.2008. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 subsequently raised an objection regarding fixation of his seniority, contending that the same was not in conformity with the circular dated 29.04.2005 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Acting upon the said representation, respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 23.03.2013, whereby the petitioner's seniority was re-fixed and he was placed at Sr. No. 515-A, i.e. the bottom of his original cadre in the year 1993 when he was appointed and above the appointees of the year 1994 of the said cadre. The petitioner challenged the said action by submitting a representation dated 07.09.2013; however, while the said grievance was pending consideration, an amended order dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure P-2) was issued, whereby his seniority was again re-fixed and he was placed lower in the gradation list. The said alteration of seniority had a direct bearing upon the promotions already granted to him and his consequential service benefits. 4. On the basis of the order dated 09.12.2015, the respondents proceeded to convene a review DPC without giving him any prior intimation or opportunity to place his case before the Committee.
The
5 petitioner came to know of the proposed review DPC only upon receipt of the communication dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure P-16) and thereafter submitted a representation dated 05.05.2016 (Annexure P- 17), objecting to the proposed action and requesting consideration of his claim. The said representation was not duly considered and, accepting the recommendations of the review DPC, respondent No. 1 passed the order dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner's placement as on 01.04.2004 is deleted, and his promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer is considered from 2008 instead of 2003, and he is placed in the gradation list accordingly, thereby the petitioner’s seniority was adversely affected. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the orders dated 09.12.2015 and 15.07.2016, on the ground that the subsequent re-fixation of his seniority, after his earlier seniority had been acted upon for promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer, was contrary to the applicable rules and principles governing allocation and seniority, and that the review DPC was convened and acted upon without affording him an effective opportunity of hearing. 5. The further case of the petitioner in rejoinder is that the objections raised by the respondents regarding maintainability and non- challenge to the circulars dated 29.04.2005 and 20.05.2005 are misconceived. The petitioner is not challenging the said policies in the abstract, but only the manner in which the respondents have applied them to his peculiar case, resulting in disturbance of his seniority after the same had remained settled and had been acted upon for several years. The petitioner had continuously served within
6 the territory of the present State of Chhattisgarh, his seniority was duly fixed by the competent authority, and on the basis thereof he was promoted first as Assistant Engineer and thereafter as Executive Engineer. The respondents cannot, after permitting him to continue on the promotional post for a considerable period, retrospectively alter his seniority and disturb the consequential service benefits.
His case is materially different from that of an employee seeking ordinary mutual transfer, as his service in the territory of Chhattisgarh commenced even prior to the reorganisation of the State and his subsequent allocation was pursuant to the mutual allocation process undertaken by the competent authorities. The impugned order dated 09.12.2015 and the consequential order dated 15.07.2016 have caused actual prejudice to him, culminating in his reversion from the post of Executive Engineer. No adequate justification or material has been produced by the respondents for disturbing the petitioner's long-settled seniority after several years, particularly when his earlier seniority had already been accepted and acted upon for granting successive promotions. The petitioner also reiterates that the Review DPC was convened without affording him prior notice or effective opportunity to represent his case and that his representation dated 05.05.2016 was not duly considered before accepting the recommendations of the Review DPC. 6. The stand of the State/respondent is that after reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner, though having opted for allocation to Chhattisgarh, was finally allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 09.09.2002 and was accordingly
7 relieved by the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh, on 18.10.2002. The petitioner challenged the said allocation before this Court in W.P. No. 2486/2002 and, during pendency of the proceedings, continued in Chhattisgarh pursuant to interim protection. Subsequently, the petitioner sought mutual allocation with Shri Malay Kumar Shrivastava and, pursuant to the policy of the Government of India dated 01.05.2003 and the order passed by this Court, he was re-allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. According to the respondents, such re-allocation being on the basis of mutual allocation, the petitioner's seniority was required to be regulated in terms of Clause 9 of the circular dated 29.04.2005, under which an employee coming to the State by way of mutual allocation is required to be placed at the bottom of the relevant gradation list.
It is submitted that the petitioner's seniority had initially been fixed incorrectly and, on a representation made by respondent No.3, the same was corrected by order dated
23.03.2013. The petitioner did not challenge the said order by instituting any independent proceeding and, therefore, according to the respondents, it attained finality. In terms of the aforesaid policy, the petitioner's seniority was again correctly re-fixed by order dated 09.12.2015, placing him at the appropriate position in the gradation list, and thereafter a Review DPC was convened. It is contended that the petitioner had been granted promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and subsequently to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of an erroneous fixation of seniority, and therefore the competent authority was entitled to rectify the illegality and take consequential action. The respondents dispute the petitioner's
8 contention that the circular dated 29.04.2005 was being given retrospective effect, and submit that the circular merely prescribed the manner in which seniority was to be determined in cases of mutual allocation. According to the State, the petitioner, having entered the Chhattisgarh cadre through mutual allocation, could not claim seniority over employees already borne in the cadre contrary to the governing policy. It is, therefore, contended that the orders dated 09.12.2015 and 15.07.2016 have been passed in accordance with Clause 9 of the circular dated 29.04.2005 and the applicable policy, and that no illegality or arbitrariness is involved in re-fixation of the petitioner's seniority or in the consequential review of his promotion. On these grounds, the State submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. The Respondent No. 3 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed his return and pleaded that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has challenged only the consequential orders re-fixing his seniority, without assailing the rules/policies dated 29.04.2005 and 20.05.2005 governing mutual transfer/mutual allocation between the successor States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
It is averred that the petitioner was originally allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh and entered the Chhattisgarh cadre only subsequently pursuant to mutual allocation on his own request. The original allocation under the State Reorganisation Act stands on a different footing from subsequent mutual transfer, which is based upon the employee's request, consent and administrative approval. Having accepted the benefit of mutual allocation and having voluntarily
9 entered the Chhattisgarh cadre, the petitioner cannot claim the further benefit of carrying his earlier seniority in Madhya Pradesh in a manner prejudicial to employees who were already borne on the Chhattisgarh cadre. The petitioner, therefore, cannot accept the beneficial part of the mutual allocation while avoiding the service consequences attached thereto. 8. The Respondent No.3 further contended that the mutual transfer policy was intended to maintain cadre stability and protect the seniority of employees already serving in the transferee State. Permitting the petitioner to retain his earlier Madhya Pradesh seniority would adversely affect the settled position of employees already serving in Chhattisgarh and defeat the object of the governing policy. The plea that the circular/rules dated 29.04.2005 could operate only prospectively is also disputed, on the ground that the rules merely regulated the service consequences of mutual allocation and did not retrospectively impose any liability or penalty upon the petitioner. The petitioner had no vested right to carry his earlier seniority into the Chhattisgarh cadre to the detriment of existing employees, and an earlier erroneous fixation of seniority could not confer an indefeasible right upon him. The impugned orders merely corrected the petitioner's seniority in accordance with the applicable rules and policies and, as the rules themselves have not been challenged, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Mr.
Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Sub- Engineer in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1993
10 and was serving at Jagdalpur prior to reorganisation of the State. At the time of reorganisation, the petitioner had opted for allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh; however, despite his option, he was initially allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 09.09.2002. The petitioner challenged the said allocation before this Court in W.P. No. 2486/2002 and, during pendency of the proceedings, also submitted an application for mutual allocation with Shri Malay Kumar Shrivastava. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court and the policy of the Government of India, the petitioner's request for mutual allocation was accepted and, in January 2005, he was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner's case cannot be treated as that of an employee who, after voluntarily serving in Madhya Pradesh, subsequently sought a transfer to Chhattisgarh, as the petitioner had been serving in the territory which subsequently became part of Chhattisgarh even prior to the reorganisation. He would further submit that after his allocation to Chhattisgarh, the petitioner's seniority was duly considered and was fixed by the competent authority, initially with effect from 01.04.2003 and subsequently, on his representation, with effect from
01.11.2002. The said seniority was acted upon by the Department for several years and, on that basis, the petitioner was granted notional promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the year 2003 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Executive Engineer vide order dated 19.09.2008. After permitting the petitioner to discharge duties as Executive Engineer for several years, the respondents could not, based on a subsequent interpretation of the
11 circular dated 29.04.2005, retrospectively disturb his settled seniority and undo the promotions already granted to him. 10.
Learned counsel would particularly submit that the circular dated 29.04.2005 could not be applied retrospectively to an allocation which had already been made in January 2005. The mutual allocation of the petitioner had attained finality before issuance of the said circular, and there is nothing in the circular expressly providing for its retrospective operation. It is argued that administrative instructions ordinarily operate prospectively unless retrospective application is expressly authorised by the competent authority or by the governing statutory provision. The respondents, therefore, could not rely upon Clause 9 of the circular dated 29.04.2005 to retrospectively alter the seniority which had already been fixed and acted upon. Learned counsel would also submit that the subsequent gazette notifications issued by the successor States demonstrate the period and operation of the relevant rules and do not authorise retrospective disturbance of the petitioner's already settled service position. 11. He would next submit that the respondents have failed to appreciate the distinction between the petitioner's original allocation and his subsequent mutual allocation. The petitioner had exercised his option for Chhattisgarh at the time of reorganisation and had continuously remained in the territory of Chhattisgarh; his application for mutual allocation was necessitated only because the Union Government had initially allocated him to Madhya Pradesh contrary to his option. Thus the petitioner's case stands on a different footing from an employee
12 who was originally allocated to Madhya Pradesh and, after accepting such allocation, voluntarily sought transfer to Chhattisgarh for personal reasons. The principle that an employee coming by way of mutual transfer must ordinarily accept bottom seniority cannot, therefore, be mechanically applied to the peculiar facts of the petitioner's case. It is further submitted that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own earlier decision by which the petitioner's seniority was fixed, acted upon and followed for granting successive promotions. The petitioner had served as Executive Engineer from 19.09.2008 and had discharged the duties of the promotional post for several years without any objection. The subsequent re-fixation of seniority after such a prolonged period, followed by convening of a Review DPC and reversion of the petitioner, has caused serious civil and service consequences.
Learned counsel would submit that even if there was any alleged error in the earlier fixation of seniority, the respondents were required to consider the petitioner's accrued rights, the long passage of time and the consequences of disturbing a settled seniority position before taking such drastic action. 12. It is also submitted that the order dated 23.03.2013 cannot be treated as having attained finality so as to defeat the present challenge, since the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 07.09.2013 against the said order and the matter thereafter culminated in the amended order dated 09.12.2015, which is specifically under challenge. The actual adverse civil consequence arose only when the respondents, on the basis of the order dated 09.12.2015, convened the Review DPC and ultimately passed the order dated
13 15.07.2016, resulting in the petitioner's reversion. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be non-suited merely on the ground that he did not earlier challenge the order dated 23.03.2013. The petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity before the Review DPC was convened and his representation dated 05.05.2016 was not duly considered before the recommendations of the Review DPC were accepted. The impugned orders, therefore, suffer from violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrary disturbance of settled seniority and improper retrospective application of the circular dated
29.04.2005. Placing reliance upon the principle recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2642, learned counsel would submit that a long-settled seniority position should not be disturbed belatedly to the prejudice of an employee, particularly after successive promotions have already been granted on the basis thereof. It is, therefore, prayed that the orders dated 09.12.2015 and 15.07.2016 be quashed and the petitioner's earlier seniority and consequential service benefits be restored. 13. Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Deputy Govt.
Advocate, appearing for the State/Respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner was initially allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh pursuant to the final allocation order dated 09.09.2002 and was subsequently brought to the State of Chhattisgarh only by way of mutual allocation at his own request; therefore, his seniority in the Chhattisgarh cadre is necessarily governed by Clause 9 of the circular dated 29.04.2005, under which an employee entering the cadre through mutual
14 allocation is required to be placed at the appropriate bottom position in the gradation list. The petitioner's earlier fixation of seniority was erroneous, and the same was rightly corrected by the competent authority; the order dated 23.03.2013 was not challenged by the petitioner and consequently attained finality. Learned counsel would further submit that the promotions granted to the petitioner as Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer were based upon the erroneous seniority position and, therefore, the respondents were competent to convene the Review DPC and rectify the consequential illegality. The circular dated 29.04.2005 is not being applied retrospectively, but merely governs the determination of seniority of the petitioner in the Chhattisgarh cadre pursuant to his mutual allocation. The petitioner cannot claim a vested right to retain an erroneous seniority merely because it was acted upon for some years, nor can he accept the benefit of mutual allocation while avoiding the service consequences attached thereto. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders dated 09.12.2015 and 15.07.2016 have been passed in accordance with the applicable policy and governing service conditions and warrant no interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 14. Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, as the petitioner has challenged only the consequential orders dated 09.12.2015 and 15.07.2016, whereby his seniority was re-fixed, and the consequential review of his promotion was undertaken, without challenging the circulars dated 29.04.2005
15 and 20.05.2005 governing mutual allocation and fixation of seniority. It is submitted that the petitioner was admittedly not originally allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh.
His services were finally allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 09.09.2002 and, thereafter, pursuant to his own application for mutual allocation with Shri Malay Kumar Shrivastava, he was subsequently allocated to Chhattisgarh in January 2005. Thus, his case is one of mutual allocation after final allocation and cannot be equated with an employee originally allocated to Chhattisgarh under the State Reorganisation Act. She would submit that mutual allocation is governed by its own service consequences and, under Clause 9 of the circular dated 29.04.2005, an employee entering the cadre of the successor State through such mutual allocation is required to be assigned seniority in the manner prescribed therein, so as not to prejudice employees already borne on the cadre. The petitioner, having voluntarily sought and accepted such mutual allocation, cannot accept the benefit of entering the Chhattisgarh cadre while simultaneously claiming preservation of his earlier Madhya Pradesh seniority. Such an approach would defeat the object of the policy and adversely affect the seniority of employees who were already serving in the Chhattisgarh cadre. 15. She further submits that the initial fixation of the petitioner's seniority was itself erroneous and could not confer any vested right merely because the error was subsequently acted upon for granting promotion. On a representation made by respondent No. 3, the competent authority examined the matter and passed an order dated
16 23.03.2013, whereby the petitioner's seniority was re-fixed in the gradation list. The petitioner did not challenge the said order and, therefore, the same attained finality. Subsequently, upon further correction of the gradation list by order dated 09.12.2015 in accordance with Clause 9 of the applicable circular, the Review DPC was convened, and the consequential order dated 15.07.2016 was passed. Learned counsel would submit that the promotions granted to the petitioner as Assistant Engineer with effect from 2003 and thereafter as Executive Engineer on 19.09.2008 were founded upon an incorrect seniority position and, therefore, no employee can claim a vested right to retain a promotion obtained on the basis of an erroneous fixation contrary to the governing service rules.
The plea that the circular dated 29.04.2005 has been applied retrospectively is also misconceived, since the circular does not retrospectively impose any penalty or alter the petitioner's past service; rather, it prescribes the applicable method for determining his seniority in the Chhattisgarh cadre consequent upon his mutual allocation. Learned counsel would further submit that cadre seniority of employees already serving in the State cannot be disturbed merely to protect the position of an employee subsequently entering the cadre through mutual allocation. The principle of protection of settled seniority must operate in favour of employees already borne on the cadre and not in favour of an erroneous seniority granted to the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are based upon the applicable policy, are intended only to rectify the petitioner's wrongly fixed seniority and the consequential promotional position, and
17 disclose neither violation of principles of natural justice nor any jurisdictional error warranting interference. 16. Ms. Anju Verma, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors, would submit that the petitioner was originally allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh and subsequently came to the State of Chhattisgarh on his own request through mutual allocation; therefore, in terms of the applicable policy and the settled principle of service jurisprudence, he was required to be placed at the bottom of the relevant seniority list and could not claim seniority of his past service in the transferee cadre. It is submitted that the erroneous seniority granted to the petitioner adversely affected the promotional prospects of the intervenors, who were otherwise eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 2003 and thereafter to the post of Executive Engineer. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was subsequently granted promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on the strength of the interim order passed in the present petition, thereby affecting the
consideration of the intervenor for further promotion. It is also submitted that an employee transferred at his own request cannot carry his past seniority to the transferee cadre and must ordinarily be placed below the junior-most employee in that cadre. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner's claim for retention of seniority deserves to be rejected. 17. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length, perused the documents annexed with the petition and gone through their pleadings. 18
18. It is not in dispute that at the time of reorganisation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner was posted at Jagdalpur, which was within the territory of Chhattisgarh. By the final allocation order dated 09.09.2002, the petitioner was allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, he made his representation on 16.10.2002 for mutual allocation with Mr. Malay Kumar Shrivastava. He also challenged his final allocation to the State of Madhya Pradesh by filing WP No. 2486/2002, which was decided on 28.04.2003, with the observation that:-
“23. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court, they have not been relieved and they are continuing. This statement is made at the Bar by the counsel for the petitioners and this is recorded. Counsel for the State submitted that they could not verify about the individual cases and the statement made at the Bar may be recorded. If in some cases or the other, it is found that the petitioners have made incorrect statement, they may be given liberty to make a mention by filing application for modification. The statements are recorded and the liberty is given to the State, as prayed. Relying on the statements made, it is directed that if the persons are not relieved they shall not be relieved. In the circumstances, it is directed that till the decision is given by the Central Government, the petitioners who have not been relieved and still continuing, shall be allowed to continue. So far those who have been relieved are concerned, they should mention this fact in their representation and it is for the Central Government to pass such order
19 which the Central Government deems fit. It is made clear that the decision on the representation would be communicated to the concerned departments, who after receiving it would communicate it to the employees concerned.
The directions are being issued to the respective departments so that the decision taken is served on the petitioners.”
19. Considering the large number of representations, the Government of India, vide its memo dated 01.05.2003, issued a guideline for
consideration of the representation under certain categories, and in para 2 of the memo dated 01.05.2003, it has been observed that:-
“3. Mutual Transfer cases: A large number of representations have been received from personnel requesting for
consideration of their mutual transfer with another consenting State service personnel. Since the Central Government has already issued final allocation orders, it finds no reason to entertain such requests. However, it is open to the successor State Governments to consider requests of mutual transfer based on broad consensus arrived between the State Governments, inter alia either defining the terms and conditions for such consideration or by framing suitable rules for this purpose.”
20. The Government of India, vide its letter issued in January, 2005 (Annexure P-8), considered the representation of Mr. Malay Kumar Shrivastava, and ordered that:- Sl No. Name of the employee Designation Decision of the Central Government
20
3. Shri
Malay Kumar Srivastava Sub-Engineer (Civil) Allocation may be revised to Madhya Pradesh in mutual exchange with Shri Brijesh Kumar Pateria in terms of para 2 of DOPT
order No 14/279/2002- SRS dated 1.5.2003
21. Thereafter, the Chhattisgarh Government passed an order on 11.04.2005, directing the petitioner to re-join at his present place of posting, which reads as under:-
“
कार्यालर्यान पत्र क्रमांका / 33948129 / प्र. अ. /
स्था / 2002
रार्यापरा दिनका 18.10.2002
द्वारा आपका अतिमां रूप से मां.प्र. का डरा आबंदि होन का फलस्वरूप मां.प्र. मां$ कार्याग्रहोण कारान हो
कार्यामांक् तिकार्या गर्या हो। उक् आबंन का तिवरुद्ध मांननर्या उच्च
न्र्यार्यालर्या का तिनणर्या का परिराप्रक्ष्र्या मां$ आपका द्वारा प्रस्
अभ्र्यावन परा भारा शासेन द्वारा जारा पत्र क्रमांका / 14 / 11 / 2005 / एसे. आरा. (एसे)
जानवरा 2005
मां$ आपका पन6
छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या का डरा आबंदि तिकार्या गर्या हो। अ6 आपका दिनका 11.04.2005
अपरान्हो का वमांन पस्थापन
कार्यालर्या मां$ हो कार्याभारा ग्रहोण कारान हो कार्यामांक् तिकार्या जा
हो। अबं आप अपन पन6 कार्याग्रहोण से;चन इसे कार्यालर्या का भा
अभिभालख हो प्रस् कारा$।”
22. Thereafter, by the order dated 12.07.2005 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner’s placement in the gradation list was made on Sr. No. 479- A, and the order is as below:-
“
श्री एच. प. बंथरा,
उप अभिभार्या एव श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या,
उप अभिभार्या का प;व मां$ मांध्र्याप्रशा का डरा आबंदि होन
का काराण छत्तीसेगढ़ काD वरिराष्ठ से;च से उक् नF उप
अभिभार्या का नमां तिवलतिप तिकार्या गर्या थ। च;तिका अबं वमांन
मां$ मांननर्या उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्या का तिनणर्या का अनसेरा नF उप
अभिभार्या का छत्तीसेगढ़ का डरा आबंदि तिकार्या गर्या हो। अ6 श्री एच. प. बंथरा का सेराल क्र. 81
श्री कान्होर्या लल स्वणकारा का
नच एव सेराल क्र. 82
श्री एच. एल. राठौHरा का ऊपरा सेराल क्र. 21 81
ए मां$ वरिराष्ठ का तिनर्धाराण तिकार्या जा हो। इसे प्रकारा श्री
बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या का सेराल क्रमांका 479
श्री शाकारा का मांरा
गजाभिभार्या का नच एव सेराल क्र. 480
श्री मांनजा थरा का ऊपरा
सेराल क्र. 479
ए मां$ वरिराष्ठ का तिनर्धाराण तिकार्या जा हो। उक्
नF उप अभिभार्या से सेबंधिर्धा अन्र्या अभिभालख (
सेलग्न प्रपत्र) का
अनसेरा र्याथव राहो$ग।
उपराक् वरिराष्ठ से;च का सेराल क्र. 189
मां$ अतिका श्री एसे. एन. तिवरा एव सेराल क्र. 198
मां$ अतिका श्री सेराशा का मांरा दुबं
जिजान्हो$ तिका मांध्र्याप्रशा का डरा आबंदि हो,
का उक् से;च से उनका
नमां तिवलतिप तिकार्या जा हो।”
23.
On 29.04.2005, the Madhya Pradesh Government issued a notification with respect to directives for mutual transfer of the State Level employees in compliance with the memo dated 01.05.2003 issued by the Central Government. Clauses 9 and 10 of the said directives are relevant for its consideration, which read as under:-
“(9)
परास्परिराका स्थानन्राण का फलस्वरूप उत्तीरावP राज्र्या मां$
कार्या ग्रहोण कारान वल शासेकाDर्या सेवका का सेतिवलिलर्यान कारा हुए
उनका सेपक्ष वरिराष्ठ अखिखल भारार्या लिसेतिवल सेवओं काD
भाति मां;ल सेवग मां$ उनका तिनर्याक्तिक्/
पन्नति वर्ष का अनसेरा अन्
मां$ तिनर्धारिरा काD जावग,
र्याथ शासेकाDर्या सेवका का उसे सेवग मां$ तिनर्याक्तिक्/
पन्नति र्यादि वर्ष 1994
काD हो,
परास्परिराका
स्थानन्राण परा आर्या शासेकाDर्या सेवका का नमां पक्रमां से;च मां$
वर्ष 1994
का उसे सेवग मां$ तिनर्याक्/
पन्न का ल शासेकाDर्या
सेवकाF का उल्लखिख अन्तिन्मां नमां का नच थ वर्ष 1995 मां$ तिनर्याक्/
पन्न शासेकाDर्या सेवकाF का नमांF से ऊपरा राख जाएग। (10)
भारा सेराकारा द्वारा तिकार्या गर्या अन्तिन्मां राज्र्या आवन का
दिनका 1
नवम्बंरा 2000
का बं शासेकाDर्या सेवका का उत्तीरावP
राज्र्या मां$ र्यादि पन्नति \ गई हो औरा व परास्परिराका स्थानन्राण
कारान चहो हो_ उन्हो$ परास्परिराका स्थानन्राण परा आर्या
उत्तीरावP राज्र्या मां$ अन्तिन्मां आवन का सेमांर्या र्धारिरा प परा
पवन कारा उसे सेवग मां$ सेतिवलिलर्यान तिकार्या जावग, परास्परिराका
22
स्थानन्राण का फलस्वरूप उत्तीरावP राज्र्या मां$ कार्याभारा ग्रहोण
कारान का बं सेबंधिर्धा अधिर्धाकारा/
कामांचरा का सेवग मां$ र्यादि व
पन्नति हो पत्र राख हो_ उसे परा तिवचरा तिकार्या जा सेका ग
औरा ऐसे अधिर्धाकारा/
कामांचरा काD सेपक्ष वरिराष्ठ अखिखल
भारार्या सेवओं काD भाति मां;ल सेवग मां$ उनका तिनर्याक्तिक्/पन्नति
वर्ष का अनसेरा अन् मां$ तिनर्धारिरा काD जावग,
जासे तिका उपराक्
क्रमांका 9
मां$ उल्लखिख तिकार्या गर्या हो।”
24. Pursuant to the said directives issued by Madhya Pradesh Government dated 29.04.2005, the placement of the petitioner is changed from 479-A to the bottom of 1993 batch employees by the
order dated 23.03.2013 (Annexure P-14). The relevant part of the
order dated 23.03.2013 is as under:-
“
श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या का उपर्यात्र का प
परा वरिराष्ठ से सेबंधिर्धा उनका अभ्र्यावन परा उठौर्या गर्या तिबंन्दुओं
का पराक्षणFपरा वरिराष्ठ का तिनम्ननसेरा तिनर्धाराण तिकार्या गर्या:-
श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या का राज्र्या पनगठौन का
उपरा मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या एव श्री मांलर्या श्रीवस्व उपअभिभार्या
का छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या आबंदि हुआ थ। नF उपअभिभार्याओं का
आपसे सेहोमांति का आर्धारा परा भारा सेराकारा कार्मिमांbका एव
प्रलिशाक्षण तिवभाग का आशा क्रमांका 14/11-2005- SR(S)01/2005
का द्वारा श्री मांलर्या श्रीवस्व उपअभिभार्या का
मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या एव श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या का
अतिमां रूप से छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या आबंदि तिकार्या गर्या।
भारा सेराकारा द्वारा जारा परास्परिराका स्थानराण का आर्धारा परा
वरिराष्ठ का राज्र्या व्याप तिनर्धाराण का तिवर्षर्या मां$ छत्तीसेगढ़ एव
मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या का सेहोमांति उपरा जारा मांध्र्याप्रशा शासेन
सेमांन्र्या प्रशासेन तिवभाग का पत्र क्रमांका एफ-11-17-2004- 4(2) रा.प.प्र. भापल दिनका 29.04.2005
द्वारा जारा तिनdशा
का तिबंन्दु क्रमांका-9 अनसेरा
"
परास्परिराका स्थानराण का
फलस्वरूप उत्तीरावP राज्र्या मां$ कार्याग्रहोण कारान वल शासेकाDर्या
सेवका का सेतिवलिलर्यान कारा हुए उनका सेपक्ष वरिराष्ठ अखिखल
23
भारार्या लिसेतिवल सेवओं काD भाति मां;ल सेवग मां$ उनका तिनर्याक्तिक्/
पन्नति वर्ष का अनसेरा अ मां$ तिनर्धारिरा काD जावग।"
उपराक् तिनdशानसेरा च;तिका श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या
उपअभिभार्या का परास्परा आपसे स्थानराण का हो छत्तीसेगढ़
राज्र्या आबंदि हुआ हो। अ6 उनका तिनर्याक्तिक् वर्ष 1993 राख
हुए कार्यालर्या प्रमांख अभिभार्या,
लका तिनमांण तिवभाग रार्यापरा का
पत्र क्रमांका/स्था./33157123/03
दिनका 12.07.2005 द्वारा
जारा दिनका 01.04.2003
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$ छत्तीसेगढ़ शासेन
लका तिनमांण तिवभाग मां$ पस्था उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) काD
सेशाधिर्धा पक्रमां से;च मां$ श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या का, सेराल
क्रमांका 479
श्री शाकारा का मांरा गणवरा का नच एव सेराल क्रमांका 480
श्री मांनजा थरा का ऊपरा,
सेराल क्रमांका 479- अ मां$ दिर्या
गर्या वरिराष्ठ मां$ सेशार्धान तिकार्या जाकारा भारा सेराकारा का परास्परा
आपसे स्थानराण तिनdशा मांध्र्याप्रशा राजापत्र दिनका 29.04.2005
का तिबंन्दु क्रमांका-9
मां$ दिर्या गर्या तिनdशा का हो श्री
बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या का मां;ल सेवग मां$ उनका तिनर्याक्तिक् वर्ष 1993
का अ मां$ एव 1994 मां$ तिनर्याक्तिक्/
पस्थापन उपअभिभार्या
का प;व तिनर्धारिरा तिकार्या जा हो। उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) का
दिनका 01.04.2003
काD वरिराष्ठ से;च का सेराल क्रमांका 515
श्री एल.एन.एसे. राठौHरा का नच एव सेराल क्रमांका 516 श्री ड.एल.
वमां का ऊपरा सेराल क्रमांका 515-
अ मां$ श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा
परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या का नमां स्थातिप तिकार्या जा हो,
थ श्री
रामांअवरा दिवकारा उपअभिभार्या का नमां सेराल क्रमांका 480
श्री मांनजा थरा का नच सेराल क्रमांका 481
र्याथवe स्थातिप
तिकार्या जा हो।”
25. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.04.2016 (Annexure P-16), in which he was asked to submit his reply.
राठौHरा का नच एव सेराल क्रमांका 516 श्री ड.एल. वमां का ऊपरा सेराल क्रमांका 515-
अ मां$ श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा
परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या का नमां स्थातिप तिकार्या जा हो,
थ श्री
रामांअवरा दिवकारा उपअभिभार्या का नमां सेराल क्रमांका 480
श्री मांनजा थरा का नच सेराल क्रमांका 481
र्याथवe स्थातिप
तिकार्या जा हो।”
25. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.04.2016 (Annexure P-16), in which he was asked to submit his reply. The contents of the notice dated 20.04.2016 are that:- “ तिवर्षर्याग लख हो तिका दिनका 18.02.2003 / 28.02.2003 का उप अभिभार्या से सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) का प परा पन्नति हो तिवभागर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति द्वारा थ पन्नति काD बंठौका आर्याजिजा काD गई थ। इसे बंठौका मां$ अन्र्या उप अभिभार्याओं का सेथ श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा का नमां भा तिवचरा क्षत्र मां$ थ। 24 त्सेमांर्या श्री दिवकारा का गपनर्या प्रतिवन अनपलब्ध होन से, सेधिमांति द्वारा इनका सेबंर्धा मां$ परिराभ्रमांण मां$ तिवचरा कारान का तिनणर्या लिलर्या गर्या थ। 2/ उक् थ पन्नति का तिनर्याधिमांकाराण हो दिनका 29.12.2006 का तिवभागर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति काD बंठौका सेपन्न हुई थ। उक् बंठौका मां$ उप अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) काD दिनका 01.11.2002 काD क्तिस्थाति शान वल वरिराष्ठ से;च का पन्नति का आर्धारा बंनर्या गर्या थ। 3/ कार्यालर्या प्रमांख अभिभार्या, लका तिनमांण तिवभाग का आशा दिनका 15.05.2006 द्वारा श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या का नमां उप अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) काD दिनका 01.11.2002 काD क्तिस्थाति मां$ जारा पक्रमां से;च मां$ सेराल क्रमांका-538 (अ) मां$ स्थातिप तिकार्या गर्या जिजासेका काराण दिनका 29.12.2006 का सेपन्न तिवभागर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति काD बंठौका मां$ सेधिमांति न श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या का उप अभिभार्या स्नका अनसे;लिच जाति वग से सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या का प परा पन्न तिकार्या जान काD अनशासे काD। श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा ( स्नका अनसे;लिच जाति) का वरिराष्ठ से;च मां$ सेराल क्रमांका-540 थ, प उपलब्ध नहोi होन का काराण श्री दिवकारा का पन्नति का लभा प्रप् नहोi हुआ। 4/ प्रकाराण मां$ कार्यालर्या प्रमांख अभिभार्या, लका तिनमांण तिवभाग, — रार्यापरा का सेशार्धान आशा क्रमांका 33157662/स्था./ प्र.अ./15, दिनका 09.12.2015 मां$ उल्लख हो तिका श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या, उप अभिभार्या का राज्र्या पनगठौन का उपरा मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या आबंदि हुआ थ। आपसे सेहोमांति का आर्धारा परा भारा सेराकारा, कार्मिमांbका एव प्रलिशाक्षण तिवभाग का आशा दिनका जानवरा 2005 द्वारा श्री परिरार्या, उप अभिभार्या का अतिमां रूप से छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या आबंदि तिकार्या गर्या। 5/ सेमांन्र्या प्रशासेन तिवभाग ( राज्र्या पनगठौन प्रकाष्ठ), मांत्रलर्या, भापल का तिनdशा दिनका 29 अप्रल 2005 का तिबंन्दु क्रमांका-9 का परिरापलन मां$ प्रमांख अभिभार्या, लका तिनमांण तिवभाग, रार्यापरा का आशा दिनका 09.12.2015 का द्वारा उप अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) काD दिनका 01.11.2002 काD वरिराष्ठ से;च मां$ सेशार्धान तिकार्या जाकारा आपका नमां सेराल क्रमांका-577- अ मां$ स्थातिप तिकार्या गर्या हो थ श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा, उप 25 अभिभार्या का नमां सेराल क्रमांका-540 मां$ स्थातिप हो जिजासेमां$ श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा आपसे वरिराष्ठ हो_। 6/ उपराक्नसेरा वरिराष्ठ सेशाधिर्धा होन का आर्धारा परा दिनका 18.02.2003 / 28.02.2003 का आर्याजिजा थ पन्नति थ इसेका तिनर्याधिमांकाराण हो सेपन्न बंठौका
दिनका 29.12.2006 का अनक्रमां मां$ तिवभागर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति काD आर्याजिजा रिराव्या; बंठौका दिनका 11.12.2015 मां$ तिवभागर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति न पर्या तिका श्री परिरार्या का वरिराष्ठ तिनर्धाराण मांध्र्याप्रशा शासेन, सेमांन्र्या प्रशासेन तिवभाग ( राज्र्या पनगठौन प्रकाष्ठ) भापल का परिरापत्र क्रमांका एफ 1-17/2004-4(2)- रापप्र. / एका,
दिनका 29.04.2005
थ छत्तीसेगढ़ शासेन,
सेमांन्र्या प्रशासेन तिवभाग का पत्र क्रमांका-
एफ 1-1/1-7/2003,
दिनका 20.05.2005
का दिशा तिनdशाF का अनरूप प;व मां$ तिकार्या
गर्या हो वर्ष 2006 मां$,
वर्ष 01.11.2002
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$
सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
का प परा पन्नति हो सेपन्न ड.प.से. का सेमांर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति द्वारा अनसे;लिच जाति सेवग
से श्री बं.का . परिरार्या,
स्नका उप अभिभार्या का स्थान परा श्री
रामांअवरा दिवकारा का वर्ष 2003
से सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (
अनसे;लिच जाति-स्नका)
थ श्री परिरार्या का वर्ष 2008
पन्नति दिनका से सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (
अनसे;लिच जाति- स्नका)
का प परा पन्नति का लभा प्रप् हो। 7/
दिनका 11.12.2015
का सेपन्न रिराव्या; ड.प.से. मां$ तिवभागर्या
पन्नति सेधिमांति न श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा का वर्ष 2003 से
सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या काD वरिराष्ठ श्री बं.का . परिरार्या का स्थान परा
प्रन तिकार्या जान काD अनशासे काD हो। प्रकाराण मां$ श्री बं.का . परिरार्या जा वर्ष 2008
मां$ कार्यापलन अभिभार्या पन्न हुए हो_,
का सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या का रूप मां$ अवन तिकार्या जान हो थ वर्ष 2008
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$ पन6 कार्यापलन अभिभार्या काD रिराव्या; ड.प.से. आर्याजिजा कारा श्री दिवकारा का नमां परा तिवचरा तिकार्या
जान हो।
अ6 तिवभाग द्वारा वर्णिणb कार्यावहो तिकार्या जान का प;व उपराक्
सेबंर्धा मां$ र्यादि आप अपन पक्ष प्रस् कारान चहो हो_ पत्र
प्रन्तिप् का 10
दिवसे मां$ इसे तिवभाग का अपन पक्ष प्रस् कारा$।
26
र्यादि तिनर्धारिरा सेमांर्यावधिर्धा मां$ आपका द्वारा पक्ष प्रस् नहोi तिकार्या
गर्या एकापक्षर्या रूप से अतिग्रमां कार्यावहो काD जार्याग।”
26.
The Chhattisgarh Government issued a notification with respect to the "
मांध्र्याप्रशा पनगठौन अधिर्धातिनर्यामां, 2000
काD र्धारा 68
काD उपर्धारा (2)
का अर्धान
उत्तीरावP राज्र्याF का अतिमां रूप से आवदि शासेकाDर्या कामांचरिरार्याF का परास्परिराका
स्थानराण (
परास्परिराका सेहोमांति से अल-बंल) तिनर्यामां, 2005" for the period from 29.04.2005 to 28.04.2008. Clause 3 of the said Rules, 2005, provided for the procedure for fixation of seniority, which reads as under:-
“3. सेतिवलिलर्यान/
ज्र्याष्ठ काD प्रतिक्रर्या.—
मांध्र्याप्रशा पनगठौन अधिर्धातिनर्यामां, 2000 (क्र. 2
सेनe 2000)
काD र्धारा 68
काD उपर्धारा (2)
का अर्धान राज्र्या पनगठौन का परिराणमांस्वरूप भारा सेराकारा
द्वारा तिकाए गए उत्तीरावP मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या का राज्र्या स्रा का अधिर्धाकारिरार्याF/
कामांचरिरार्याF का अतिमां आवन परा,
मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या
से छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या मां$ थ छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या से मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या
मां$ परास्परिराका सेहोमांति से स्थानराण का परिराणमांस्वरूप
शासेकाDर्या कामांचरिरार्याF काD सेतिवलिलर्यान/
ज्र्याष्ठ तिनम्ननसेरा होग:- (1)
परास्परिराका स्थानराण का परिराणमांस्वरूप
सेतिवलिलर्यान का पश्चाe उसे शासेकाDर्या सेवका काD सेपभिक्षका (रिरालदिव) ज्र्याष्ठ,
जिजासेमां$ उत्तीरावP राज्र्या मां$ पभारा
ग्रहोण तिकार्या हो,
मां;ल सेवग मां$ उनकाD तिनर्याक्तिक्/
पन्नति काD
राख का अनसेरा अ मां$ तिनर्या काD जाएग;
उहोराणथ र्यादि
सेवग (काडरा)
मां$ शासेकाDर्या सेवका काD तिनर्याक्तिक्/
पन्नति का वर्ष 1994 हो,
उसे शासेकाDर्या
सेवका का नमां जिजासेमां$ परास्परिराका स्थानराण परा
पभारा ग्रहोण तिकार्या हो,
सेबंधिर्धा वर्ष 1994
मां$ उसे सेवग
मां$ तिनर्याक्/
पन्न सेभा शासेकाDर्या सेवकाF का अतिमां नमां
का नच राख जाएग थ वर्ष 1995 मां$ तिनर्याक्/पन्न
शासेकाDर्या कामांचरिरार्याF का नमां से पहोल राख जाएग। (2)
र्यादि शासेकाDर्या सेवका,
जा अतिमां आवन का पश्चाe
उसे प परा जा वहो भारा सेराकारा द्वारा अतिमां आवन
27
का सेमांर्या र्धारिरा कारा राहो थ/
राहो थ,
उत्तीरावP राज्र्या मां$
पन्न तिकार्या गर्या हो थ परास्परिराका स्थानराण का
आर्धारा परा पभारा ग्रहोण कारा हो,
उसे उसे प परा,
जा वहो अतिमां आवन का सेमांर्या र्धारिरा कारा राहो थ/राहो थ,
पवन तिकार्या जाएग थ उसेका सेभा सेवग (काडरा)
मां$ सेतिवलिलर्यान तिकार्या जाएग थ उसेकाD ज्र्याष्ठ
उप तिनर्यामां (1)
का अनसेरा तिवतिनभिश्चा काD जाएग।”
27. Thereafter, on 09.12.2015 (Annexure P-2), the following amended
order was passed with respect to the posting and placement in the gradation list of the petitioner, which reads as under:-
“
कार्यालर्यान पत्र क्रमांका 33157000/2002 दिनका 18.11.2002
द्वारा उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) काD दिनका 01.11.2002
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$ जारा पक्रमां से;च मां$ श्री बंBजाशा
परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
का अतिमां रूप से मां.प्र. का डरा
आबंदि होन का काराण उपअभिभार्या पक्रमां से;च मां$ इनका नमां
शाधिमांल नहोi तिकार्या गर्या थ।
भारा शासेन द्वारा राज्र्या पनगठौन का हो श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा
परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या का मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या एव श्री मांलर्या का मांरा
श्रीवस्व उपअभिभार्या का छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या आबंदि हुआ थ।
नF उपअभिभार्याओं का द्वारा आपसे सेहोमांति का आर्धारा परा
परास्परिराका स्थानराण हो प्रस् अभ्र्यावन का आर्धारा परा
भारा सेराकारा कार्मिमांbका,
लकालिशाकार्या एव प$शान मांत्रलर्या नई
दिल्ल का आशा क्रमांका 14/11.2005/एसे.आरा.(एसे) जानवरा, 2005
द्वारा श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या का परास्परिराका अराण का
आर्धारा परा अतिमां रूप से छ.ग. राज्र्या आबंदि तिकार्या गर्या हो।
इसे कार्यालर्या का पत्र क्रमांका 33157000/2002 दिनका 18.11.2002
द्वारा दिनका 01.11.2002
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$
उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
काD जारा पक्रमां से;च मां$ श्री परिरार्या का
नमां शाधिमांल नहोi थ। त्पश्चाe इसे कार्यालर्या का आशा क्रमांका 33157209/स्था./प्र.अ./06
रार्यापरा दिनका 15.05.2005 द्वारा
दिनका 01.11.2002
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$ उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) काD
पक्रमां से;च मां$ श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
का नमां सेराल क्रमांका 538
श्री शाकारा का मांरा गणवरा का नच एव
28 से.क्र. 539
श्री मांनजा थरा का ऊपरा सेराल क्रमांका 538 (अ)
मां$ स्थातिप तिकार्या गर्या।
श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (त्कालन उपअभिभार्या)
द्वारा श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
का वरिराष्ठ से;च मां$ सेशार्धान का तिवरुद्ध प्रस्
अभ्र्यावन का पराक्षण तिकार्या गर्या। पराक्षणFपरा तिनम्ननसेरा
वरिराष्ठ का तिनर्धाराण तिकार्या जा हो -
श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या का राज्र्या पनगठौन का
उपरा मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या एव श्री मांलर्या का मांरा श्रीवस्व
उपअभिभार्या का छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या आबंदि हुआ थ। नF
उपअभिभार्याओं का आपसे सेहोमांति का आर्धारा परा भारा सेराकारा
कार्मिमांbका एव प्रलिशाक्षण तिवभाग का आशा क्रमांका 14/11-2005- एसे.आरा.(एसे.)01/2005
द्वारा श्री मांलर्या का मांरा श्रीवस्व
उपअभिभार्या का मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या एव श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या
उपअभिभार्या का अतिमां रूप से छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या आबंदि तिकार्या गर्या।
भारा सेराकारा द्वारा जारा परास्परिराका स्थानराण का आर्धारा परा
वरिराष्ठ का राज्र्याव्याप तिनर्धाराण का तिवर्षर्या मां$ छत्तीसेगढ़ एव
मांध्र्याप्रशा राज्र्या का सेहोमांति उपरा जारा मांध्र्याप्रशा शासेन
सेमांन्र्या प्रशासेन तिवभाग का पत्र क्रमांका एफ-1-17-2004-4(2) रा.प.प्र.
भापल दिनका 29.04.2005
द्वारा जारा तिनdशा का
तिबंन्दु क्रमांका-9
अनसेरा "
परास्परिराका स्थानराण का फलस्वरूप
उत्तीरावP राज्र्या मां$ कार्याग्रहोण कारान वल शासेकाDर्या सेवका का
सेतिवलिलर्यान कारा हुए उनका सेपक्ष वरिराष्ठ अखिखल भारार्या
लिसेतिवल सेवओं काD भाति मां;ल सेवग मां$ उनका तिनर्याक्तिक्/पन्नति
वर्ष का अनसेरा अ मां$ तिनर्धारिरा काD जावग।"
उपराक् तिनdशानसेरा च;तिका श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या
उपअभिभार्या का परास्परा आपसे स्थानराण का हो छत्तीसेगढ़
राज्र्या आबंदि हुआ हो,
अ6 उनका तिनर्याक्तिक् वर्ष 1993 का अ
मां$ एव 1994 मां$ तिनर्याक्तिक्/
पन्न उपअभिभार्या का प;व वरिराष्ठ
तिनर्धारिरा तिकार्या जान हो।
श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या का छ.ग. राज्र्या आबंन वर्ष 2005 मां$
होन का काराण कार्यालर्यान पत्र क्रमांका 33157000/2002
29
दिनका 18.11.2002
द्वारा उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
काD दिनका 01.11.2002
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$ जारा पक्रमां से;च मां$ कार्यालर्यान
सेशार्धान आशा क्रमांका 33157209/स्था./प्र.अ./06 रार्यापरा,
दिनका 15.05.2005
द्वारा श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या का नमां
शाकारा का मांरा गणवरा सेराल क्रमांका 538
का नच एव श्री मांनजा
थरा से.क्र. 539
का ऊपरा 538 (अ)
मां$ स्थातिप तिकार्या गर्या थ,
का सेशाधिर्धा कारा हुए,
मांध्र्याप्रशा राजापत्र दिनका 29.04.2005
का तिबंन्दु क्रमांका-9
मां$ वरिराष्ठ तिनर्धाराण का सेबंर्धा
मां$ दिर्या गर्या तिनdशा का अनसेरा दिनका 18.11.2002 का
उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
काD दिनका 01.11.2002
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$
जारा वरिराष्ठ से;च मां$ श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या उपअभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
का नमां सेराल क्रमांका 577 (
श्री एल.एन.एसे. राठौHरा)
का नच एव सेराल क्रमांका 578 (
श्री ड.एल. वमां)
का ऊपरा
सेराल क्रमांका 577-
अ मां$ स्थातिप तिकार्या जा हो।”
28. After his representation, the Chhattisgarh Government has passed the order on 15.07.2016 (Annexure P-1), which is the impugned
order in the present writ petition, which is as under:-
“
क्रमांका एफ 2-7 / 2015 / 19 / स्था.-2 ::
सेमांन्र्या प्रशासेन
तिवभाग (
राज्र्या पनगठौन प्रकाष्ठ) मांत्रलर्या,
भापल का राजापत्र मां$
प्रकालिशा तिनdशा क्रमांका एफ 1-17-2004-4(2)-रापप्र.-एका,
दिनका 29.04.2005
मां$ आपसे अल-
बंल का हो श्री बं.का . परिरार्या,
त्कालन उप अभिभार्या का छत्तीसेगढ़ राज्र्या
आबंन होन का फलस्वरूप सेमांन्र्या प्रशासेन तिवभाग (राज्र्या
पनगठौन प्रकाष्ठ), मांत्रलर्या,
रार्यापरा का परिरापत्र क्रमांका एफ 1-1 / 1-7 / 2003, दि. 20.05.2005
का परिरापलन मां$ कार्यालर्या
प्रमांख अभिभार्या,
लका तिनमांण तिवभाग,
रार्यापरा का आशा क्रमांका- 33157662 / स्था. / प्र.अ. / 15, दिनका 09.12.2015
द्वारा उप अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) काD दिनका 01.11.2002
काD वरिराष्ठ से;च मां$ सेशार्धान तिकार्या जाकारा सेराल क्रमांका-577-
अ मां$ श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या,
उप अभिभार्या का
नमां स्थातिप तिकार्या गर्या हो थ श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा, उप
अभिभार्या का नमां सेराल क्रमांका-540
मां$ स्थातिप हो। उक्
क्तिस्थाति मां$ श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा,
श्री बं.का . परिरार्या से वरिराष्ठ हो।
30 2/
उक्नसेरा वरिराष्ठ सेशाधिर्धा होन परा दिनका 18.02.2003 / 28.02.2003
का सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
का प परा
आर्याजिजा थ पन्नति थ इसेका तिनर्याधिमांकाराण हो सेपन्न
बंठौका दिनका 29.12.2006
का अनक्रमां मां$ तिवभागर्या पन्नति
सेधिमांति काD रिराव्या; बंठौका दिनका 11.12.2015
का आर्याजिजा काD गई। 3/
श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या काD उपराक्नसेरा वरिराष्ठ
सेशाधिर्धा होन का आर्धारा परा तिवभागर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति न पर्या
तिका श्री परिरार्या का वरिराष्ठ तिनर्धाराण मांध्र्याप्रशा शासेन, सेमांन्र्या
प्रशासेन तिवभाग (
राज्र्या पनगठौन प्रकाष्ठ),
भापल का परिरापत्र
दिनका 29.04.2005
व छत्तीसेगढ़ शासेन,
सेमांन्र्या प्रशासेन
तिवभाग का परिरापत्र दिनका 20.05.2005
का दिशा तिनdशाF का
अनरूप प;व मां$ तिकार्या गर्या हो वर्ष 2006 मां$, वर्ष 01.11.2002
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$ सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) का प
परा पन्नति हो सेपन्न ड.प.से. का सेमांर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति द्वारा
अनसे;लिच जाति सेवग से श्री बं.का . परिरार्या,
स्नका उप
अभिभार्या का स्थान परा श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा (अनसे;लिच जाति-स्नका)
का वर्ष 2003
से सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या थ श्री बं.का . परिरार्या का वर्ष 2008
से सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (अनसे;लिच जाति-स्नका)
का प परा पन्नति का लभा प्रप् हो। 4/
तिवभागर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति काD रिराव्या; बंठौका दिनका 11.12.2015
का आर्याजिजा बंठौका मां$ दिनका 29.12.2006
का उपअभिभार्या से सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या का प परा पन्नति हो
सेधिमांति द्वारा तिनर्धारिरा तिकार्या गर्या मांपण्ड का अनसेरा श्री
रामांअवरा दिवकारा,
श्री बं.का .
परिरार्या का स्थान परा पन्नति हो उपर्याक् पर्या गर्या। उक् सेबंर्धा मां$ श्री परिरार्या का पत्र दिनका 20.04.2016 द्वारा से;चन पत्र जारा कारा पत्र प्रन्तिप् का 10 दिवसे मां$ अपन पक्ष राखन हो अवसेरा दिर्या गर्या थ। श्री परिरार्या द्वारा दिनका 05.05.2016 का द्वारा अपन पक्ष राख हुए सेमांक्ष मां$ सेनवई का अवसेरा दिर्या जान हो तिनवन तिकार्या गर्या। उक् तिनवन का आर्धारा परा श्री परिरार्या का प्रकाराण मां$ सेनवई हो दिनका 04.06.2016 का अवसेरा दिर्या गर्या। 31 श्री परिरार्या सेनवई हो दिनका 04.06.2016 का सेमांक्ष मां$ उपक्तिस्था हुर्या। उनका द्वारा का दिर्या गर्या तिका उनका परास्परिराका स्थानराण मांध्र्याप्रशा से छत्तीसेगढ़ मां$ जानवरा 2005 मां$ तिकार्या गर्या। त्सेमांर्या वरिराष्ठ तिनर्धाराण का सेबंर्धा मां$ स्पष्ट आशा / तिनdशा नहोi [थ] । वरिराष्ठ तिनर्धाराण मां$ आशा / तिनdशा / नति अप्रल 2005 मां$ प्रथमां बंरा अधिर्धासे;लिच काD गई। र्यादि परास्परा स्थानराण का सेमांर्या उन्हो$ इनका ज्ञान हो परास्परा स्थानराण का आवन हो प्रस् नहोi कारा। च;तिका नति / तिनdशा काD अधिर्धासे;चन उनका आबंन का पश्चा काD गई हो। अ6 पश्चावP नति का आर्धारा परा उनकाD वरिराष्ठ का तिनर्धाराण तिकार्या जान न्र्यार्या सेग नहोi हो। सेमांन्र्या प्रशासेन तिवभाग राज्र्या पनगठौन प्रकाष्ठ, मांत्रलर्या वल्लभा भावन, भापल का अधिर्धासे;चन दिनका 29.04.2005 द्वारा नF राज्र्याF द्वारा तिवचरा तिवमांशा कारान का पश्चा भारा सेराकारा द्वारा अतिमां रूप से आबंदि राज्र्या स्रार्या अधिर्धाकारिरार्याF / कामांचरिरार्याF का आपसे सेहोमांति से परास्परिराका स्थानराण का सेबंर्धा मां$ तिनdशा जारा तिकार्या गर्या हो। उक् तिनdशा का सेराल क्रमांका 9 एव 10 मां$ उल्लखिख अनसेरा परास्परिराका स्थानराण का फलस्वरूप सेतिवलिलर्यान / वरिराष्ठ का सेबंर्धा मां$ अधिर्धासे;चन दिनका 17 अप्रल 2007 ( परास्परिराका सेहोमांति से अल-बंल) तिनर्यामां 2005 बंनर्या गर्या हो। उक् तिनर्यामां का तिनर्यामां 3(1) मां$ प्रवर्धान हो, तिका परास्परिराका स्थानराण का परिराणमांस्वरूप सेतिवलिलर्यान का पश्चा उसे शासेकाDर्या सेवका काD सेपभिक्षका (रिरालदिव) ज्र्याष्ठ, जिजासेन उत्तीरावP राज्र्या मां$ पभारा ग्रहोण तिकार्या हो, मां;ल सेवग मां$ उनकाD तिनर्याक्तिक् / पन्नति काD राख का अनसेरा अ मां$ तिनर्या काD जार्याग। परास्परा स्थानराण का प्रकाराण मां$ प्रचलिल तिनdशाF का आर्धारा परा प्रमांख अभिभार्या द्वारा जा कार्यावहो काD गई हो, वहो उलिच हो। अ6 श्री परिरार्या का अभ्र्यावन थ्र्याF परा आर्धारिरा नहोi होन का काराण मांन्र्या र्याग्र्या नहोi पर्या गर्या। 5/ तिवभागर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति काD रिराव्या; बंठौका दिनका 11.12.2015 मां$ सेधिमांति काD अनशासे का अनक्रमां मां$ राज्र्या शासेन एद्वारा श्री रामांअवरा दिवकारा त्कालन उप अभिभार्या का थ पन्नति वर्ष 2003 से सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) का 32 प परा पन्न तिकार्या जा हो। श्री दिवकारा का पन्न प का
वस्तिवका लभा इनका द्वारा सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या का प परा कार्याभारा ग्रहोण कारान का दिनका से हो प्रप् होग। इसेका प;व काD अवधिर्धा का " कार्या नहोi वन नहोi (No Work No Pay)" का लिसेद्ध का आर्धारा परा काई एरिरार्यारा र्या नहोi होग। इसेका सेथ हो श्री दिवकारा काD वरिराष्ठ सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल) काD पक्रमां से;च दिनका 01.04.2004 काD क्तिस्थाति मां$ श्री मांनजा थरा सेराल क्र. 120
का नच एव श्री वरान्द्र का मांरा बंदिर्या सेराल क्र. 121
का ऊपरा सेराल क्र. 120-
अ मां$ तिनर्धारिरा काD जा हो।
उक् पक्रमां से;च मां$ से श्री बंBजाशा का मांरा परिरार्या का नमां
तिवलतिप तिकार्या जा हो। 6/
तिवभागर्या पन्नति सेधिमांति काD अनशासेनसेरा श्री रामांअवरा
दिवकारा का श्री बं.का . परिरार्या का स्थान परा वर्ष 2003 से
सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
का प परा पन्नति दिर्या जान का
फलस्वरूप श्री बं.का . परिरार्या का वर्ष 2008
से सेहोर्याका
अभिभार्या का प परा पन्न तिकार्या जा हो। इसेका सेथ हो श्री
परिरार्या काD वरिराष्ठ सेहोर्याका अभिभार्या (लिसेतिवल)
काD दिनका 01.04.2009
काD क्तिस्थाति मां$ जारा पक्रमां से;च का सेराल क्रमांका-157
श्री प्र\प का गप् का नच एव श्री लिशावलल ठौका रा
सेराल क्रमांका-158
का ऊपरा सेराल क्रमांका-157-
अ मां$ तिनर्धारिरा
तिकार्या जा हो। च;तिका श्री परिरार्या द्वारा कार्यापलन अभिभार्या प
परा कार्या तिकार्या जाकारा वन प्रप् तिकार्या गर्या हो,
अ6 उनसे
वन काD वसे;ल (रिराकावरा)
नहोi काD जावग थ श्री दिवकारा का
कार्या नहोi वन नहोi का लिसेद्ध का आर्धारा परा काई एरिरार्यारा र्या
नहोi होग। 7/
उक् पन्नति का सेबंर्धा मां$ अनसे;लिच जाति / अनसे;लिच
जानजाति का लिलए आराक्षण सेबंर्धा तिनर्यामांF /
आशाF का पलन
तिकार्या गर्या हो।”
29.
As regards the first submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s long-standing seniority cannot be disturbed after a considerable lapse of time, it is required to examine whether the petitioner has approached the Court within a reasonable time and whether interference at a belated stage would unsettle a
33 position which has remained accepted for a considerable period. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a person aggrieved by promotion of a junior should ordinarily approach the Court within six months or, at the most, within a year, and that stale claims should ordinarily not be entertained. The same principle has subsequently been reiterated in Union of India v. C. Girija, (2019) 15 SCC 633, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a belated representation does not revive a stale cause of action. 30. However, the aforesaid principle has to be applied having regard to the nature of the cause of action and the conduct of the parties. The present case is not one where the petitioner remained silent from the very inception and, after an unexplained delay, has sought to claim a new seniority position. The record, as noticed hereinabove, shows that after his allocation to Chhattisgarh, the petitioner's seniority was considered by the competent authority, initially fixed with effect from 01.04.2003 and thereafter re-fixed with effect from 01.11.2002. On the basis of such seniority, he was considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer and was thereafter promoted as Executive Engineer on 19.09.2008. Thus, the seniority position was not merely a tentative entry in a gradation list; it was acted upon by the department for granting successive promotional benefits. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 07.09.2013 against the order dated 23.03.2013, and the matter was thereafter reconsidered, culminating in the order dated 09.12.2015. Therefore, the objection of the respondent that the petitioner has approached
34 this Court only after remaining silent over the entire period cannot be accepted in its absolute form. 31. The distinction between a belated claim and a case where an existing service position is sought to be disturbed by the employer after a considerable lapse of time is material.
Here, the impugned action is not merely refusal to grant a benefit claimed by the petitioner after delay; rather, it seeks to unsettle a seniority position which had already been determined by the competent authority and acted upon for several years, resulting in promotions to higher posts. The respondents seek to justify the action on the ground that the earlier fixation was erroneous. However, even where an administrative authority discovers an error in its earlier decision, the question whether such error can be corrected after a prolonged period, particularly when third-party and accrued service rights have intervened, has to be examined with due regard to the principles of fairness, certainty and prejudice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Mobisana Singh v. Kh. Temba Singh, (2008) 1 SCC 747, has recognised that seniority, though not a fundamental right, is a civil right and that such a right cannot be taken away without affording the affected employee an opportunity of hearing. 32. In the facts of the present case, therefore, the issue cannot be answered merely by observing that the order dated 23.03.2013 was not independently challenged. The petitioner had admittedly submitted a representation dated 07.09.2013 against the said order, and the respondents themselves subsequently issued the amended
order dated 09.12.2015. The latter order is the immediate foundation
35 for the Review DPC and the consequential order dated 15.07.2016, which resulted in the petitioner's reversion from the post of Executive Engineer. Thus, the challenge is required to be examined with reference to the entire chain of events and not by isolating the order dated 23.03.2013 from the subsequent decision-making process. The principle against disturbing settled service positions after an inordinate lapse of time, therefore, assumes significance in the present case. 33. The second issue, whether the promotion granted to the petitioner on the basis of such seniority could be withdrawn/reviewed when there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part, concerns the effect of the alleged erroneous seniority upon the promotions already granted to the petitioner. There is no allegation in the pleadings that the petitioner had secured his earlier seniority or promotion by practising fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. On the contrary, the seniority was fixed by the competent departmental authorities, and the petitioner was considered and promoted through the regular departmental process. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be treated on the same footing as an employee who obtained promotion by making a false representation or by concealing relevant facts. The distinction is important because the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged erroneous fixation of his seniority. 34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently recognised the principle that where an employee has received a benefit because of an error committed by the administration and the employee himself is not
36 responsible for such error, the consequences of the administrative mistake cannot ordinarily be visited upon the employee in an inequitable manner. In “Ram Ujarey v. Union of India”, (1999) 1 SCC 685, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where an employee had earned promotions on the basis of service benefits earlier extended by the department, and the department later sought to withdraw that benefit on the ground of mistake, the employee could not be reverted without first informing him of the proposed action and giving him an opportunity of hearing.
The principle is not that an erroneous promotion becomes legally incapable of correction in every circumstance; rather, the absence of employee fault is a relevant and significant factor while determining whether the employee can be subjected to adverse consequences after the benefit has been granted and enjoyed for a considerable period. Though the notice was issued to the petitioner, the notice dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure P-16), order dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure P-2) and dated15.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) clearly demonstrate that the decision has already been taken to re-fix his seniority at his earlier position and withdraw the promotional benefit of the petitioner, and the issuance of notice would be an empty formality. 35. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, it is not sufficient for the respondents merely to state that the petitioner's promotion was founded upon an erroneous seniority position. It was also necessary to examine whether the petitioner was responsible for the alleged error, whether the seniority was fixed by the competent authority after consideration of his case, how long the said position
37 remained undisturbed, and what consequences would follow from reopening it after the petitioner had already been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and had served there for several years. The petitioner's promotion dated 19.09.2008 was not shown to have been obtained through any misrepresentation on his part. Therefore, even if the respondents were entitled to correct the seniority position in accordance with the governing rules, the consequential reversion could not automatically follow merely as a matter of course without examining the equities and the legal consequences arising from the long-standing departmental decision. 36.
The third issue raised by the petitioner, whether the petitioner could be reverted from the post of Executive Engineer pursuant to a Review DPC without affording him an effective opportunity of hearing relating to natural justice, assumes still greater significance because the ultimate consequence of the impugned action was not merely alteration of the petitioner's position in the gradation list, but reversion from the post of Executive Engineer. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that no prior notice was given to him before the Review DPC was convened, that he came to know about the proposed review only through communication dated 20.04.2016, and that he thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated
05.05.2016. The respondents have not demonstrated, from the material placed on record, that before taking the final decision dated 15.07.2016 the petitioner's objections were duly considered by the competent authority or that an effective opportunity was afforded to
38 him to establish why his earlier seniority and consequential promotion should not be disturbed. 37. The requirement of natural justice becomes particularly relevant when an administrative decision has adverse civil consequences. In the present case, the proposed action affected the petitioner's seniority, promotional status and ultimately resulted in his reversion from Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer. Such consequences cannot be characterised as merely ministerial or consequential in the narrow sense. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Mobisana Singh (supra) has specifically recognised seniority as a civil right and held that such right cannot be taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected employee. Therefore, once the respondents proposed to alter the seniority which had formed the basis of the petitioner's successive promotions and to take consequential action against him, the petitioner was entitled to an effective opportunity to place his objections before the competent authority. 38. The fact that a Review DPC was subsequently constituted does not, by itself, cure the absence of an opportunity of hearing.
A Review DPC examines the service record and determines the employee's entitlement in the light of the corrected position; it is not necessarily a substitute for an opportunity to contest the foundational decision by which the employee's seniority itself has been altered. The petitioner's representation dated 05.05.2016 was therefore required to be considered before the competent authority took the final decision resulting in reversion. If the representation was not
39 considered, or if the decision dated 15.07.2016 does not disclose
consideration of the material objections raised therein, the consequential order would suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice. 39. There is another aspect which cannot be overlooked. The respondents seek to apply Clause 9 of the circular dated 29.04.2005 to the petitioner's case on the premise that his entry into the Chhattisgarh cadre was by way of mutual allocation. The question whether the said circular could validly govern an allocation which had already taken place in January 2005, and whether the petitioner's peculiar circumstances arising from the State reorganisation and his original option for Chhattisgarh distinguish his case from an ordinary mutual transfer, are substantive questions requiring examination. These questions cannot be answered merely by describing the subsequent action as a “correction” of an erroneous seniority. Before disturbing an already settled seniority and the promotions flowing therefrom, the authority was required to determine the applicability of the circular to the petitioner's case in accordance with law and after considering the objections raised by him. 40. In this regard, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2642, is relevant to the extent that the decision is relied upon for the principle concerning disturbance of an established seniority position after a considerable lapse of time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-
40
“50. Thus, much water has flown under the bridge and retrospective application of the GO issued in 2015 would open floodgates of litigation and would disturb the seniority of many employees causing them grave prejudice and heartburn as it would disturb the crystallized rights regarding seniority, rank and promotion which would have accrued to them during the intervening period. To alter a seniority list after such a long period would be totally unjust to the multitudes of employees who could get caught in the labyrinth of uncertainty for no fault of theirs and may suffer loss of their seniority rights retrospectively.”
41. The principle of finality in service matters, however, cannot be applied mechanically in favour of either side. The Court has to balance the legality of the original seniority fixation, the conduct of the employee, the delay in correction by the administration, the rights of other employees, and the prejudice resulting from reopening the matter.
Thus, the question is not merely whether the earlier seniority was ultimately found to be erroneous, but whether, in the facts of the present case, it was legally permissible and procedurally fair to unsettle that position after it had been acted upon for several years and after the petitioner had already earned successive promotions. 42. Another relevant consideration is that respondent No. 3 has already attained the age of superannuation and has retired from service. Therefore, even if the petitioner's promotion is disturbed retrospectively, no effective promotional benefit can now accrue to respondent No. 3, nor can he be granted any consequential promotion after his retirement. Thus, the proposed reversion of the
41 petitioner would not result in advancement of any presently enforceable promotional right of respondent No. 3. On the other hand, such reversion would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, who has continued on the promotional post for a considerable period and, after several years, would be required to suffer the adverse consequences of an administrative decision for which he is not shown to be responsible. 43. On a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents were not justified in disturbing the petitioner's seniority after a considerable lapse of time, particularly when such seniority had been fixed by the competent authority and had been acted upon for granting successive promotions. There is no allegation that the petitioner had secured such seniority or the consequential promotions by practising fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. The petitioner had already been promoted as Assistant Engineer and thereafter as Executive Engineer and had discharged the duties of the promotional post for several years. The subsequent re-fixation of his seniority and the consequential review of his promotion, therefore, resulted in serious civil consequences to the petitioner. Further, the fact that respondent No.3 has already attained the age of superannuation and retired from service is also a relevant circumstance.
Even if the petitioner's promotion is disturbed retrospectively, no effective promotional benefit can now accrue to respondent No.3 by reason thereof. On the other hand, such reversion would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, who has
42 continued on the promotional post for a considerable period and would, after several years, be subjected to the adverse consequences of an administrative decision for which he is not shown to be responsible. More importantly, before giving effect to the Review DPC recommendations, the petitioner's objections raised in his representation dated 05.05.2016 were required to be duly considered. The impugned order dated 15.07.2016 does not disclose such consideration in a manner commensurate with the serious civil consequences flowing therefrom. 44. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 09.12.2015 and 15.07.2016 cannot be sustained. The order dated 09.12.2015, whereby the petitioner's seniority was re-fixed to his prejudice, and the consequential order dated 15.07.2016, whereby the recommendations of the Review DPC were given effect to, resulting in alteration of the petitioner's promotional status, are hereby quashed and set aside. The seniority position of the petitioner as existing immediately prior to the
order dated 09.12.2015 shall stand restored.
45. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
46. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved