1 2026:CGHC:15839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 427 of 2022 * - Maheshwar Lal Dewangan S/o Late Bhanu Ram Dewangan, Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted And Working As Sub Inspector At Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Of Police Head Quarter Raipur, Atal Nagar, Nawa, Raipur Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General Of Police Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Hemraj Patel S/o Late Peela Singh Patel Aged About 51 Years Working As Assistant Sub Inspector, And Posted At S.P. Office Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Peer Mohammad, S/o Late Guljar Mohammad, Aged About 45 Years Working As Assistant Sub Inspector, And Posted At Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ramvilas Negi S/o Shyam Sundar Negi Aged About 49 Years Working As Assistant Sub Inspector And Posted At Police Station Jagdlapur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3/ State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05-01-2022 (Annexure P-1). Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.07 18:04:32 +0530 2 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector vide order dated 03.07.2021. He would contend that respondent No. 2 vide order dated 05.01.2022 without affording any opportunity of hearing, cancelled the order of promotion and reverted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He would further contend that as right was accrued in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities ought to have provided opportunity of hearing. He would submit that the order Annexure P-1 dated 05.01.2022 is bad in law. He would pray to set aside said order Annexure P-1. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 would submit that due to typographical mistake, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector vide order dated 03.07.2021 and when this fact was brought into the notice of respondent No. 2, the order impugned was passed. He would contend that respondent No. 2 has rectified the mistake which occurred in the order of promotion dated 03.07.2021. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Perusal of the order of promotion dated 03.07.2021 would show that the petitioner and others Assistant Sub-Inspectors were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector pursuant to decision taken by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 21.05.2021. It is also evident from 3 said order, there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and no fraud was played. Pursuant to order of promotion dated 03.07.2021, the petitioner joined on the promoted post and he was receiving monetary benefits attached to the said post and without affording an opportunity of hearing, the order Annexure P-1 was passed by respondent No. 2 on 05.01.2022. 6. As the petitioner had already joined on the promoted post, he was availing monetary benefits and no opportunity of hearing was afforded, the order dated 05.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) is bad in law and is hereby quashed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that an interim order was passed on 25.01.2022 in favour of the petitioner and he is still discharging function of Sub-Inspector. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to pass a fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till decision is taken, the petitioner shall not be demoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and he shall discharge function of Sub-Inspector with all monetary benefits. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s) / direction(s), this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti