Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
A.K. Jain, S/o. Late Shri SC Jain - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Raipur, C.G. & Ors. - Respondents
WPS No. 5462 of 2011
Decided On : 02-02-2024
Seniority Dispute - Promotion - Madhya Pradesh Adhinasth Krishi (Alipikiya Vargiya Sewa) Niyam, 1972, CG Adhinasth Krishi (Alipikiya Vargiya Sewa) Niyam, 2010 - Article 226 - 246-6-270-10-350, 220-5-240-6-270-10-300 EB-10-350-211-350 - Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715, Chandu Ram Jatwar Vs. State of CG - Promotion rules, Seniority, Arbitrary action, Principle of natural justice, Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the promotion of respondents No. 3 to 5 over him, alleging that they were granted promotion ignoring his seniority. The petitioner was appointed as Press Operator on a higher pay scale than respondents No. 3 to 5, who were appointed as Press Photographer. The petitioner was later promoted to the post of Agriculture Development Officer (ADO) and sought correction of the seniority list, but his representations were ignored. The petitioner claimed that the actions of the respondent authorities were illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated the principles of natural justice and constitutional articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent authorities were not justified in denying promotion and seniority to the petitioner above respondents No. 3 to 5 since 1.2.2008. The court directed the respondent authorities to treat the promotion of the petitioner to the post of ADO from 1.2.2008, re-fix his seniority above respondents No. 3 to 5, and grant him all the consequential benefits including monetary benefits.
Issues: Seniority dispute, Promotion rules, Arbitrary action, Violation of constitutional articles, Principle of natural justice
Ratio Decidendi: An employee cannot be put to loss for the lapse on the part of the government. The settled legal position is that an employee cannot be denied promotion and seniority due to the unjustified delay on the part of the government. The court relied on the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in previous judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to treat the promotion of the petitioner to the post of ADO from 1.2.2008, re-fix his seniority above respondents No. 3 to 5, and grant him all the consequential benefits including monetary benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of the court's order.
ORDER :
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent authorities whereby ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, respondents No. 3 to 5 have been granted promotion.
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Press Operator on 13.6.1980 with the respondent department on the basic of 246-6-270-10-350 at the office of Dy. Director, Agriculture Bilaspur vide Annexure P/1. Respondent No.3 Ravindra Kumar Mun, respondent No.4 Suresh Kumar Sikya and respondent No.5 AK Bose were appointed as Press Photographer on the basic of 220-5-240-6-270-10-300 EB-10-350-211-350 on 26.7.1993, 16.7.1993 and 5.5.1986 respectively. Copy of the seniority list as on 1.4.2010 of Press Operator and Photographer is filed as Annexure P/2. On 29.12.2010 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Agriculture Development Officer and in this regard, amended order was issued on 14.1.2011 vide Annexure P/3. Respondents No.3 to 5 were promoted on 1.2.2008 to the post of Agriculture Development Officer vide Annexure P/4. In the seniority list as on 1.4.2010 of Agriculture Development Officers, the names of respondents No. 3 to 5 appear at S.No.296, 295 and 294 whereas the name of the petitioner is not mentioned therein. Further, in the seniority list as on 1.4.2011 of the Agriculture Development Officers, names of respondents No. 3 to 5 find place at S.No.191, 190 and 189 whereas the petitioner’s name appear at S.No.592 vide Annexure P/7 & P/8.
The posts of Compositor and Photographer are lower post as compared to the post of Press Operator on which the petitioner was appointed and pay scale of respondents No. 3 to 5 was also lower than the petitioner’s pay scale. Hence the petitioner submitted representation for correction of seniority/gradation list. Upon receiving his representation, the respondent authority issued an order of promotion on 19.2.2014 (Annexure P/9) and promoted respondents No. 3 to 5 to the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer, which is illegal as the instant petition is pending for adjudication before this Court and as such, the DPC should not have recommended the names of respondents No. 3 to 5 for promotion. Further, the DPC has not followed the CG Public Service (Promotion) Rules while granting promotion to respondents No. 3 to 5 to the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer. Hence this petition for the following reliefs :
10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the gradation list of Agriculture Development Officer as on 01-04-2011.
10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner and to place him in the gradation list of Agriculture Development Officer as on 01.04.2011, above Respondent No. 3 to 5 at serial No.189, 190 & 191.
10.4 Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.
10.5 Cost of the Petition be also awarded.
10.6 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the promotion order dt. 19.02.2014 (Annexure P-9) issued by the Respondent.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was appointed as Press Operator on 13.6.1980 on the basic of 246-6-270-10-350 at the office of Dy. Director, Agriculture Bilaspur whereas respondents No.3 to 5 were appointed as Press Photographer on the basic of 220-5-240-6-270-10-300 EB-10-350-211-350 on 26.7.1993, 16.7.1993 and 5.5.1986 respectively. Thus, the posts of Compositor and Photographer were lower posts as compared to the post of Press Operator on which the petitioner was appointed and their pay scale was also lower than the petitioner’s pay scale. Howeve
An employee cannot be denied promotion and seniority due to the unjustified delay on the part of the government.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotion decisions are based on seniority-cum-merit and the application of relevant rules, specifically the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Prom....
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner did not comply with the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.342, dated 04.08.1997.
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and denial of timely consideration constitutes a violation of these rights.
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
