RAJESH KUMAR CHANDRAWANSHI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 5

CGHC010312542024 2026:CGHC:38945
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5737 of 2024
1 - Rajesh Kumar Chandrawanshi S/o Late Shri Anuj Ram
Chandravanshi, Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 563, Sapphire
Green Phase 2, Near Vidhansabha, Ring Road No.3, Baronda, Raipur,
District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
... Petitioner
Digitally signed by
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
Date: 2026.09.03
17:46:44 +0530
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Under Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare
And Bio-Technology Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Special Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare
And Bio-Technology Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Shri Rajesh Kumar Rathore S/o Late Shri A.V. Rathore, Aged About
52 Years Presently Serving As Additional Director, Beej Avam Krishi
Vikash Nigam Government Of Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, GA

2 / 5
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak,
Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)
Order on Board
02/09/2026
1.
By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“1. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated
30.08.2024, issued by the Under Secretary, Agriculture
Development and Farmer Welfare and Bio-Technology
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, cancelling the
promotion of the Petitioner from the Post of Joint Director
to the post of Additional Director, and Promoting Private
Respondent, Shri Rajesh Kumar Rathore;
2. Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner on
the post of Additional Director, Beej avam Krishi Vikash
Nigam Government of Chhattisgarh, with all
consequential benefits, including seniority, pay,
allowances, and other service benefits, with effect from
14.12.2022;
3. In furtherance Direct the Respondents to consider and
count the services of the petitioner from the date
14.12.2022 which he initially promoted to the post of
additional Director Agriculture as intact and consider it as
continues services on the post of Additional Director, Beej
avam Krishi Vikash Nigam Government of
Chhattisgarhwithout there being any effect of impugned
order dated 30.08.2024 Annexure P/1;
4. Grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem

3 / 5
just, fair, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case;”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the
recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee
(D.P.C.) vide order dated 14.12.2022 the petitioner has been
promoted to the post of Additional Director (Agriculture) and in
compliance of the said order he has joined the duties. However,
all of a sudden, by the impugned order dated 30.08.2024
(Annexure P/1) the promotion of the petitioner has been cancelled
and reverted him to the post of Joint Director (Agriculture). In the
same order, in place of the petitioner, the respondent No.5 has
been promoted to the post of Additional Director (Agriculture).
The said order was passed on the basis of representation made
by Respondent No.5. He submits that before passing the
impugned order, petitioner was not given any opportunity of
hearing or even at the time when the representation of the
Respondent No.5 was decided, the petitioner was not heard.
Learned counsel further submits that there are total 08 sanctioned
post of Additional Director Agriculture in the respondent
department out of which only 03 persons have been working and
05 posts are still lying vacant.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents that during pendency of the
present writ petition, the petitioner has retired from service on
30/11/2025 and presently the grievance of the petitioner survives
only with regard to his alleged reversion/demotion pursuant to the

4 / 5
impugned order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). Learned
counsel submits that by the said order, while cancelling the earlier
promotion order dated 14.12.2022 issued in favour of the
petitioner, respondent No.5/ Shri Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Joint
Director (Agriculture), has been promoted to the post of Additional
Director (Agriculture). Learned counsel further submits that since
the entire effect and operation of Annexure P-1 has been stayed
by the order of this Court dated 17/09/2024, respondent No.5 has
been deprived of discharging duties on the promotional post
despite having been found suitable. However, learned counsel for
the State fairly admitted the fact that before passing the impugned
order no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents.
5. It is an admitted fact that p rior to the issuance of the order of
demotion against the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was
afforded to the petitioner and no notice was issued to him.
6.
It is trite that whenever an administrative action entails adverse
civil consequences, strict adherence to the principles of natural
justice is indispensable unless specifically excluded by statute. A
recovery order affecting the pecuniary rights of an employee
undoubtedly visits him with civil consequences and, therefore,
cannot be sustained if passed in violation of the rule of audi
alteram partem . Compliance with the principles of natural justice

5 / 5
is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard against
arbitrary exercise of power.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, the impugned order dated 30/08/2024, insofar as it
relates to the demotion of the petitioner from the post of Additional
Director (Agriculture) to the post of Joint Director ( Agriculture) , is
hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State to pass
a fresh order within a period of 30 days, in accordance with law,
after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well
as respondent No. 5.
8. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case.
SD/-
( Bibhu Datta Guru )
JUDGE
Gowri/
Amardeep