Deferment of Promotion Based on Inconsequential Complaint Cannot Deprive Judicial Officer of Seniority: Chhattisgarh High Court Directs Reconsideration

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: Smt. Chhaya Singh vs Hon'ble High Court Of Chhattisgarh & Ors

Citation: WPS No. 7379 of 2023

High Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Date of Judgment: 29th June, 2026

Area of Law: Service Law, Constitutional Law, Judicial Service, Promotion and Seniority, Administrative Law

2. Judgment in Brief

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a judicial officer seeking restoration of her original seniority and consequential promotion benefits. The petitioner, appointed as Civil Judge Class-II in 2008, was deferred for promotion to Civil Judge Class-I in 2014 due to a complaint by the Superintendent of Police. The complaint did not culminate in any departmental enquiry or disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was later promoted in 2016 but was denied restoration of original seniority. The Court held that deferment based on a complaint that resulted in no adverse action cannot permanently deprive the petitioner of her rightful seniority. The Court directed the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion with effect from 14.08.2014, the date her batchmates were promoted, and to restore her seniority and all consequential benefits. The Court rejected the respondents' objections of delay and laches, holding that the claim has recurring civil consequences and the rejection order was cryptic and unreasoned.

3. Relevant Facts

Appointment and Service Record

• The petitioner was selected and appointed as Civil Judge Class-II (Junior Division) in 2008, securing 14th position in the merit list amongst 60 selected candidates.

• She joined service on 26.12.2008.

• Her service conditions were governed by the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006.

• She was confirmed in service on 01.09.2012 maintaining her original merit position.

• She consistently secured "C" grading from 2009-10 to 2012-13 and "B" grading in 2013-14.

The Complaint and Deferment

• During her posting at Durg, a complaint was made against the petitioner by the then Superintendent of Police in relation to judicial proceedings.

• The petitioner submitted her explanation on 04.03.2013.

• No departmental enquiry or disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her.

• Vide promotion order dated 14.08.2014, the petitioner's case was kept in the category of "deferred" candidates, while 45 other judicial officers were promoted.

• The petitioner was never declared unfit for promotion.

Subsequent Promotion and Seniority Issue

• The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.04.2015 seeking promotion and consequential benefits, but it remained undecided.

• On 12.08.2016, the petitioner was promoted to Civil Judge Class-I (Senior Division).

• However, she was denied restoration of her original seniority.

• Under Rule 12(D) of the C.G. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, an employee whose case was deferred and who is subsequently found fit is entitled to restoration of original seniority from the date their immediate junior was promoted.

Rejection of Representation

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.