Rajendra Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2026

                                            1




  Digitally signed
  by RAMESH
  KUMAR VATTI
  Date:
                                                           2026:CGHC:17651
  2026.04.21
  18:54:44 +0530
                                                                          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/ :                Mr. Anil Pandey, Government Advocate
State


                      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
                                     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

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

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.