1 2026:CGHC:17651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7671 of 2018 * - Rajendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Director (Agriculture), Department Of Agriculture, Bilaspur, Resident Of Maharana Pratap Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, P.S. Sirgitti, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture And Bio Technology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Agriculture, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2/ State : Mr. Anil Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the DPC for promotion to the post of Deputy Director Agriculture held on 03.10.2018 from the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ declaring that the DPC for Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.21 18:54:44 +0530 2 promotion to the post of Deputy Director Agriculture held on 03.10.2018 is violative of the provisions of The Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the recommendations made by the DPC for promotion to the post of Deputy Director Agriculture held on 03.10.2018. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to convene a review DPC for promotion to the post of Deputy Director Agriculture with due compliance of the provisions of the The Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant (Agriculture) vide order dated 15.09.1981. He suffered 40% visual disability on 03.01.2005. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Agriculture) on 01.10.2013. Circular was issued by the State Government describing provisions of promotion for persons with disabilities on 27.09.2014. The claim of the petitioner for further promotion was not considered, therefore, he filed WPS No.202/2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.01.2016 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider aspect of identifying posts in various categories to grant benefit of reservation keeping in view the provision contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short “the Act of 1995”). A Contempt Case No. 449/2016 was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 05.10.2016 with a direction to take a policy decision within outer limit of 03 months. The petitioner pleaded that he was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) and therefore, a representation was made 3 but it was rejected on account of non-availability of vacancy vide order dated 10.11.2016. 3. Representation of the petitioner was again rejected vide order dated 10.11.2016 and said order was subject matter of WPS No.616/2017 and said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2017. Writ Appeal No. 132/2017 was filed assailing order dated 13.02.2017 and it was dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2017, but it was observed that it does not decide the eligibility of appellant to take recourse to other remedies and the order passed in writ petition would not be understood as fore closing other remedies. On 19.04.2017, the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 came into force. An order was passed by respondent No. 1 to reserve post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) for persons with disabilities. Similar direction was issued in Contempt Case No. 206/2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.05.2017. The petitioner again moved representation before the respondent authorities to comply with the order passed in Contempt Case No. 206/2017 and to follow circular issued by respondent No. 1 dated 26.06.2018. The respondent authorities did not take action, therefore, WPS No. 6135/2018 was filed, wherein respondents were granted time to seek instruction. A DPC was convened for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) on 03.10.2018, but name of the petitioner was not considered in absence of vacant post. The petitioner got retired from services on account of superannuation in the year 2020. 4. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been pursing his right of promotion since 2016. He would contend that specific circular was issued by 4 respondent No. 1 on 26.06.2018 to earmark the vacant post for the persons with disabilities, but no decision has been taken yet. He would further contend that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the year 2016 itself and this writ petition was filed on 13.11.2018 i.e. prior to date of superannuation. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to convene a review DPC of DPC dated 03.10.2018 and to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture). 5. Mr. Anil Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Amrito Das. Mr. Pandey would submit that though the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture), but his name was not considered in absence of vacant post of Deputy Director (Agriculture). He would contend that the petitioner has already got retired from services on account of superannuation and thus, the petitioner cannot be granted promotion with retrospective effect. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 (14) SCALE 294. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. Amrito Das would submit that in the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), writ petition was filed after date of retirement. He would contend that in matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi claim of promotion was considered by DPC, but order was not communicated while he was in service and he was communicated with regard to order of promotion after his retirement, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that benefit of promotion cannot be extended from retrospective 5 effect. He would contend that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of cited case. He would pray to allow this petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed. 8. It is true that the petitioner initially filed WPS No. 202/2015 seeking a direction to the respondents to identify posts in various categories granting benefit of reservation keeping in view the provisions of the Act of 1995. A contempt petition was also filed. Representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 10.11.2016. WPS No. 616/2017 was dismissed and order passed in said writ petition was affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 132/2017. The order passed in said writ petition wherein similar relief was sought attained finality as it was not challenged further by the petitioner. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the subsequent petition claiming similar relief is hit by principles of res judicata. The petitioner has already got retired from services on account of superannuation. Though this writ petition was filed prior to date of retirement, but as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) that retrospective promotion cannot be granted to a government servant after retirement. Further notional benefits cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner after superannuation. The relevant paragraphs no.15 & 19 are reproduced herein below:- “15. The primary question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial 6 benefits of the promotional post after his retirement? 19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC Online SC 1768, wherein it was observed as follows:- “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209, a three-Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent- writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 7 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her’s fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. 8. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are 8 facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’ “20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, reported 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P, (2006) 10 SCC 346, in the following words: ‘37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this 9 Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits…… 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime.” (emphasis supplied)” 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), no case is made out for interference into the matter. 10. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti