Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Promoted Engineer’s Bid To Keep Bilaspur Circle Posting: Earlier Additional Charge Created No Rightverbal_final

After the incumbent Superintending Engineer retired, the petitioner, then an Executive Engineer, was assigned additional charge of Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Bilaspur, by an order dated 16.03.2026.

He was promoted to the substantive post of Superintending Engineer on 22.09.2026.

On 21.10.2026, the Engineer-in-Chief cancelled the earlier additional-charge arrangement and directed him to discharge duties under the Office of the Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Kachhar, until further orders, following respondent No. 5’s posting to the Bilaspur Circle.

The petitioner challenged that order, alleging arbitrariness and undue hardship shortly before retirement.

The State submitted that a subsequent posting order dated 24.10.2026, not challenged in the petition, posted the petitioner to the Office of the Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Basin, Bilaspur.

An assignment of additional charge is a temporary administrative arrangement and does not confer a substantive or indefeasible right to the higher post, to retain that charge, or to continue at a particular place of posting.

The competent authority may withdraw or modify the arrangement in the interests of administration.

A challenge to an earlier order may not afford effective relief where a subsequent, independent posting order governs the employee’s current posting and that later order has not been challenged.

The judgment does not identify any statute or precedent as the basis for these principles.

The Court treated the petitioner’s initial assignment as a stop-gap measure made after the incumbent’s retirement and held that his prior additional charge did not give him a vested right to remain at Bilaspur after promotion to the substantive post.

It also observed that the unchallenged order dated 24.10.2026 independently governed his posting, so setting aside the 21.10.2026 order would not provide effective relief.

The State’s explanation that posting orders had been delayed by an interim order in other proceedings, later modified on 08.10.2026, further persuaded the Court that the action was not shown to be arbitrary or mala fide merely because the petitioner had a short period of service remaining.

It granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the subsequent posting order dated 24.10.2026, if so advised.