Chhattisgarh High Court
Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

Absorbed employees’ seniority runs from the date the government took over the college.

DR. MADAN MURARI VAISHNAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: September 24, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Absorbed employees’ seniority runs from the date the government took over the college.. DR. MADAN MURARI VAISHNAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners had served as Assistant Professors at the erstwhile Gramya Bharti Vidya Peeth, later Government Gramya Bharti College, before being absorbed into Government service on 03.06.2016 without a break in service.

Source reference: p. 2–4

The College was taken over by the State Government with effect from 21.12.2012 under a Government Order dated 19.09.2013.

Source reference: p. 2–4

The petitioners challenged their placement in the seniority list issued on 13.11.2024, contending that their seniority should be counted from the takeover date rather than their absorption date.

Source reference: p. 2–4

They had made representations seeking correction of their seniority and consideration for promotion.

Source reference: p. 2–4
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioners’ seniority should be determined from the date the College was taken over by the Government, rather than from their date of absorption into Government service.

Source reference: p. 3–4

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representation concerning seniority and pass a reasoned order.

Source reference: p. 4–5
03

Law Applied

The Court referred to Rule 14(v) of the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, as amended by Gazette Notification dated 13.06.2013.

Source reference: p. 4

It recorded that, under this provision, the seniority of an absorbed employee is to be determined from the date on which the College was taken over by the Government.

Source reference: p. 4
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioners’ prior service, their absorption without a break, the Government takeover of the College, and the applicability of Rule 14(v) were not disputed.

Source reference: p. 4–5

However, it did not determine the petitioners’ individual seniority or grant consequential promotion benefits.

Source reference: p. 5

In light of the State’s submission that a fresh representation would be considered, the Court directed the petitioners to submit one and required the authorities to decide it under the 1990 Rules by a reasoned and speaking order.

Source reference: p. 5
05

Holding

The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to respondents 1 and 2 within 20 days, referring to the relevant rules.

The respondents were directed to consider the representation in accordance with the 1990 Rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 40 days of receiving it.

Source reference: p. 5

The Court did not finally rule on the petitioners’ claimed seniority or promotion entitlement.

Source reference: p. 5
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

DR. MADAN MURARI VAISHNAVvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · September 24, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment