NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:3814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 254 of 2019

1 - Hemendra Singh Thakur S/ol Pratap Singh Aged About 49 Years Presently Working At Assistant Grade -Iii, Municipal Corporation Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Department Of Urban, Administration, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation Raigarh Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Municipal Corporation Ambikapur Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Mayank Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o C.P. Singh, Working As Assistant Grade - Ii, At Municipal Corporation Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District :

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Pallavi Das, Advocate.

For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent No.4 : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent No.5 : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

22.01.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 13-08-2018 (Annexure P-1), and impugned promotion order dated 05-03-2015 (Annexure P-2).

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 for considering the promotion of petitioner.

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III sometimes in the year 2012. Respondent No.5 was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur and later on, his services were transferred from Ambikapur to Municipal Corporation, Raigarh on 3.12.1999. The services of respondent No.5 were regularized vide order dated 17.12.2002 with effect from 1.7.2001. Respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 5.3.2015 and the said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner preferred WP(S) No. 4555 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.7.2018 with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 13.8.2018, which is also under challenge in this petition. She would submit that no seniority list was published by respondent No.3 while considering the name of respondent No.5 for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II. She would submit that the petitioner moved an application under the Right to Information Act to obtain seniority list, but no document was provided by the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. She would contend that name of respondent No.5 reflects in the seniority list of Assistant Grade-III in the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur and therefore, the order of promotion granted to respondent No.5 is illegal.

3. It is argued that the services of respondent No.5 were never absorbed by the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, therefore, consideration of his name for promotion is per se illegal. She would also submit that respondent No.5 is entitle