Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 22579
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
SHEELA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 4426 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anirudh Shrivastava, S.S. Baghel
For the Respondents: Abhishek Singh
The court granted the petitioner liberty to submit a representation to the concerned authority to determine seniority and consequential benefits post-retirement, directing the authority to decide the matter in accordance with the law.
Headnote:The petitioner, an Upper Division Teacher, sought seniority from 26/08/2008 and correction of the gradation list based on an initial appointment date of 11/02/1984, contending that juniors were extended such benefits. The court noted that the petitioner has since retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation. The primary issue was whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority and consequential benefits. The court observed that the petitioner sought liberty to make a representation before the respondent authority for an objective decision on the matter. the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to make a detailed representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the said authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for seniority and consequential benefits based on appointment date and parity with juniors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. direction to the administrative authority to decide a representation regarding seniority in accordance with law. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
Judgment On Board
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
• grant seniority to the petitioner on the post of UDT from the date her juniors were extended the said benefit i.e. 26/8/2008 pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court as also the recommendation made by the respondent No.3 Joint Director, Education Division Durg vide Annexure - P/5;
• place her name in the gradation list at an appropriate place treating her initial date of appointment as 11/2/1984; and
• grant all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner.
(b) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.
(c) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 11.2.1984 and subsequently, promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher on 24.6.2009. He would contend that the petitioner claimed seniority with effect from the year 2008 as her name was placed below her juniors in the seniority list. He would contend that the petitioner got retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, the petitioner may be granted liberty to make a representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the said authority be directed to consider and decide the same in an objective manner within the stipulated time.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
5. Having considered the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to make a detailed representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the said authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of.
