Case Law Details
Prabhakar Upadhyay Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 12.03.2021 by which the department rejected his claim for promotion to the post of State Tax Officer. He sought reconsideration of his promotion with effect from 20.10.2020, the date on which other officers were promoted, along with all consequential benefits, including seniority. Alternatively, he sought consideration of his case for promotion on the basis of either four years’ Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) or by including the ACR for 2014-15 of the Cooperative Department. The petitioner also prayed that, if promoted during the pendency of the petition, he be granted seniority with effect from 20.10.2020.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had been promoted to the post of State Tax Officer pursuant to the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 16.11.2021. It was, however, contended that although promotion had been granted, the petitioner had not been extended the benefits of seniority or the monetary benefits attached to the promotional post. Counsel requested that the petitioner be permitted to submit a representation before respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and that directions be issued for its consideration within a stipulated period in accordance with law.
The respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the challenge was directed against the order dated 12.03.2021 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for promotion. Since the petitioner’s name had subsequently been considered and he had been promoted to the post of State Tax Officer pursuant to the DPC decision dated 16.11.2021, they argued that the writ petition had become infructuous.
After hearing the parties and examining the record, the High Court observed that the reliefs claimed in the petition also included seniority and monetary benefits attached to the promotional post. Consequently, the Court held that the petition could not be treated as infructuous merely because the petitioner had been promoted during its pendency.
The Court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation before respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claiming seniority with effect from 20.10.2020 together with the monetary benefits attached to the post. It directed that, if such a representation is submitted, the respondents shall decide it strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:
“1] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 (Annex.P/1) passed by the department and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of State Tax Officer from the date of promotion of the other officers i.e. w.e.f. 20.10.2020 and the petitioner may kindly be granted all the consequential benefits including the seniority.
2] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of State Tax Officer on the basis of either the ACR’s of 4 years or including the ACR of 2014-15 of the Cooperative department, if during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner would be promoted on the promotional post of State Tax Officer then the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to mold the relief and the petitioner may kindly be granted seniority w.e.f. 20.10.2020 when the other similarly placed inspectors were promoted.
3] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner in this petition has claimed promotion from the post of State Tax Inspector to the post of Sales Tax Officer with effect from 20.10.2020. She would fairly submit that during pendency of this petition, the petitioner was promoted to the post of State Tax Officer pursuant to decision of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 16.11.2021. It is argued that despite grant of promotion, the respondent authorities have not extended the benefits of seniority and the monetary benefits attached to the promotional post. She would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondents No.1 & 2 and a direction may be issued to the said authorities to decide the representation so made by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within the stipulated time.
3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner has challenged an order dated 12.3.2021 issued by respondent No.1, whereby the claim of the petitioner with regard to promotion was rejected. They would submit that as the name of the petitioner has already been considered and he has been promoted to the post of State Tax Officer pursuant to decision of DPC dated 16.11.2021, this petition has rendered infructuous.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
5) In the relief clause, the petitioner has also claimed seniority as well as the monetary benefits attached to the post, therefore, this petition cannot be treated infructuous. Though the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Sales Tax Officer pursuant to decision of DPC dated 16.11.2021, as informed by the Advocates appearing for the respondents, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondents No.1 & 2 claiming therein seniority with effect from 20.10.2020 alongwith the monetary benefits attached to the post. If such a representation is made, respondents No.1 & 2 shall decide it strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6) Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Author Bio
