Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Mohan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402
1 WP. No. 6272 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6272 of 2016
CHANDRA MOHAN SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Katare - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri M.S. Jadon - Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar- Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;
(ii) That, the order Annexure P/1 dated 26.8.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to be set aside.
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.
Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402 2 WP. No. 6272 of 2016
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that initially petitioner was appointed as Peon vide order dated 26.10.1979 on compassionate basis. Thereafter, he was promoted as Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 15.07.1985. Then petitioner was further promoted on the post of Junior Accountant vide order dated 08.12.1998. Thereafter, petitioner was appointed/promoted as Accountant after completion of accounts training. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that one Jagdish Arora and Omprakash Vyas who were juniors to petitioner were promoted as Assistant Property Tax Officer and one Badri Narayan Shukla was also promoted from the post of Sanitary Inspector to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the criteria for promotion is Seniority-cum-Merit, therefore, petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WP. No.1476/2001(S) which has been decided by this Court by order dated 12.12.2006 and this Court had directed the respondents to consider petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that order dated 12.12.2006 has not been challenged by respondents by filing writ appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that as the respondents did not promote petitioner despite order dated 12.12.2006, petitioner had submitted contempt petition and due to contempt petition, the promotion order dated 23.05.2014 had been issued by respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner was senior to Jagdish Arora and Omprakash Vyas. Respondent No.3 had mala fide intention as he was not satisfied with the performance of petitioner and number of times respondent No.3 had misbehaved with petitioner in open meeting and because of aforesaid respondents issued show- cause notice dated 10.08.2016 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, petitioner demanded documents by application dated 19.08.2016. Petitioner again demanded documents Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402 3 WP. No. 6272 of 2016 by representation dated 24.08.2016. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondents did not supply the documents and without supply of record and documents with mala fide intention respondent No.3-Commissioner issued reversion order dated 26.08.2016. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order was stayed by this Court on 09.09.2016 and due to the stay order petitioner worked as Assistant Property Tax Officer till his retirement i.e. 30.06.2020. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had demanded various documents and submitted representation but respondents did not consider and with mala fide intention reversion order Annexure P-1 was issued by respondent No.3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that Jagdish Arora and Omprakash Vyas, Ramprakash Sharma and Uttam Kumar Jakheniya were also promoted in different cadres but no action was taken against them and with mala fide intention respondent No.3 issued the impugned order. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner was senior to Jagdish Arora and Omprakash Vyas, Ramprakash Sharma and Uttam Kumar Jakheniya who continuously worked as Assistant Property Tax Officer and retired from that post. Learned counsel further submitted that Jagdish Sharma and others who were Sanitary Inspectors were also considered for promotion in different cadres and without holding DPC they were promoted to the post of Sanitary Inspector and thereafter further promoted as Property Tax Inspector and then to Assistant Property Tax Officer by Annexure P-10 dated 06.07.2002. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 (for brevity "Rules, 2000") came into force with effect from 09.02.2001 and had petitioner been considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer at the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402 4 WP. No. 6272 of 2016 relevant point of time as respondents had considered the case of Jagdish Arora and Omprakash Vyas, then petitioner could have been promoted before notification of Rules, 2000. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that due to interim stay order, petitioner worked continuously as Assistant Property Tax Officer till his retirement i.e. 30.06.2020. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that as petitioner worked on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer and being senior to Jagdish Arora and Omprakash Vyas, his promotion order is justified and he cannot be reverted by the order impugned.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that Rules, 2000 came into existence whereby the services of the employees of the Municipal Corporation would be governed and the aforesaid Rules came into existence from the date of notification dated 09.02.2001. Earlier, there were no rules at all whereby the services of the employees working in the Municipal Corporation would govern, therefore, as per the decision taken by the standing council, the promotion of Jagdish Arora and Omprakash Vyas was made but after implementation of the aforesaid rules and as per the repealing and saving clause of Rule 17, petitioner is not entitled for promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer as after implementation of Rules, 2000 Accountant can be promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer and after completion of five years the Assistant Accounts Officer can be promoted to the post of Accounts Officer and cannot be promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. This Court has already considered in WP.1488/2010 [Jai Krishan Gaur Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior And Others] decided vide order dated 24.09.2025 that if the juniors have already been promoted in the DPC which had Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402 5 WP. No. 6272 of 2016 been held before commencement of Rules, 2000, then being senior the case of senior person must also be considered without considering the Rules, 2000. This Court in Jai Krishan Gaur (supra) has held as under:
10. Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra have been promoted with retrospective effect i.e. from 31.12.1984 on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer by order dated 20.02.2009 and Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra have been promoted due to order passed in WP.
No.2110/2002 vide order dated 22.07.2008. Admittedly, Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra are juniors to petitioner and once the benefit of promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer has been granted to juniors i.e. Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra with effect from 31.12.1984 petitioner is also entitled to be given promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer with effect from 31.12.1984. Even respondent No.1 has not filed additional reply to deny the promotion of Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra.
11. From perusal of documents available on record, it is gathered that respondent No.2 was also promoted by the same order but he has not been demoted and in his case the channel of promotion has been accepted whereas in case of petitioner respondent No.1 while taking reference of Rules of 2000 stated that there is no channel of promotion from the post of Zonal Officer to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer. Before coming into the force the Rules of 2000 petitioner was recommended for promotion as the Rules were published in the Gazette on 09.02.2001. Petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 31-12-1984 on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/ Assistant Revenue Officer, his case will not be governed by the Rules of 2000 and accordingly he was rightly promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer. In respect of respondent No.2 same channel has been accepted and he has further been promoted while in the case of petitioner different criteria has been adopted which is contrary to Article 14 of Constitution of India. Along with petitioner one Gyan Singh, Abid Hussain Quereshi, Badri Narain Shukla, Jagdish Kumar Sharma and Ashok Kumar Pandey were working as Zonal Officers in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and they were promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer / Assistant Revenue Officer Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402 6 WP. No. 6272 of 2016 vide order dt. 6.7.2002. Jagdish Kumar Sharma was further promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner but in case of petitioner different criteria was adopted. In the year 2002, out of total 13 posts, 5 posts of Assistant Property Tax Officer/ Assistant Revenue Officer were vacant. Before 2001, there was no rule governing services of the employees of the Municipal Corporation and accordingly Zonal Officers were promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Asst. Revenue Officer. Considering the promotion order dated 6-7-2002 respondent/Corporation granted promotion to other persons, namely, Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra as they had approached this Court by filing WP. No.2213/2002 and 2306/2002 and respondent/Corporation granted promotion and seniority to them w.e.f. 31-12-1984 vide order dated 8-5-2007. Similar order was passed in respect of Balkrishna Bansal in WP.No. 2110/2002 on 22.07.2008 and seniority has been assigned with effect from 31.12.1984 vide Annexure P-32 dated 20.02.2009 and respondent/Corporation also granted benefit of seniority to one Shyam Kumar Khare w.e.f. 31-12-1984 vide order dt. 5.5.2007. Respondent/Corporation has granted benefit to other persons on the basis of promotion of petitioner but the benefit of promotion order dated 06.07.2002 has been withdrawn. On the basis of DPC recommendation three persons namely, Jagdish Kumar Sharma, Shyam Kumar Khare and Gulab Rao Kale have also been promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner but the case of petitioner has been kept in sealed cover envelope and one Badri Narain Shukla has also been promoted on the basis of DPC recommendation on the post of Assistant Commissioner. Shyam Kumar Khare is also similarly situated to petitioner and he has also been promoted along with petitioner by order dated 06.08.1996 and therefore once respondent/Corporation has given benefit to similarly situated persons, withdrawing the same benefit in respect of petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction.
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh And Others Vs. Mahesh Narain And Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 169, in para 5, 15, 16 and 17, has held as under:-
"5. There were 15 posts of Assistant Directors in the Department which were sanctioned by the State when the Rules of 1987 came into force. The Rules of 1987 were subsequently Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402 7 WP. No. 6272 of 2016 amended by the U.P. Forensic Science Laboratories Technical Officers Service (First Amendment) Rules, 1990 which were published in the U.P. Government Gazette dated 20-10-1990. In the meantime, the respondents had already acquired 5 years of experience on the next lower post due to which they had become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Forensic Science.
15. The principle laid down in Nirmal Chandra case [1991 Supp (2) SCC 363 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 236 : (1992) 19 ATC 302] aptly fits into the facts and circumstances of this case as the subsequent amendment of 1990 laying down to fill in all the posts of Assistant Director, Forensic Science by direct recruitment could not have been applied in case of the respondents who were already holding the post of Scientific Officer and hence were eligible to the promoted quota of 25% posts of Assistant Director after completion of five years of service as Scientific Officers in terms of the Rules of 1987 and, therefore, their experience of five years on this post could not have been made to go waste on the ground that the amendment came into effect in 1990 making all the posts of Assistant Director to be filled in by direct recruitment. In support of this view, the counsel for the respondents also relied on the decision of this Court in B.L. Gupta v. MCD [(1998) 9 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 532] wherein this Court had held that any vacancy which arose after 1995 was to be filled up according to the rules but the vacancies which arose prior to 1995 should have been filled up according to the 1978 Rules only.
16. As a consequence of the aforesaid analysis, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in taking the view that the respondents were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director under the Rules of 1987 against 25% quota to be filled in by promotion as they satisfied the conditions of five years of requisite experience on the post of Scientific Officer if the experience were to be counted from the date of publication of the Rules in the U.P. Government Gazette.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402 8 WP. No. 6272 of 2016
17. But besides the above, it cannot be overlooked that even if it were to be assumed that the respondents had not completed five years of experience on the post of Scientific Officer for any reason whatsoever making them ineligible for consideration of further promotion, they also had the statutory protection and benefit of the proviso to the said Rule 5 which laid down that where permanent Scientific Officers were not available for absorption under the 25% quota, such temporary and officiating personnel were also to be considered for promotion to the said posts who were functioning on permanent basis on the next lower post. It is an admitted position that the respondents had already been confirmed on the next lower post when they were promoted to the post of Scientific Officers and as they were entitled to the benefit of the proviso which laid down that even the temporary Scientific Officers who are permanent on next below post may also be considered for the purpose of promotion, the respondents had a right to be considered for promotion since they were continuing on the post of Scientific Officer and had completed five years even before the amended Rules came into effect on 20-10-1990 which laid down that all posts of Assistant Directors would be filled by direct recruitment. Thus, for this additional and sure shot reason as also for the reasons which have been assigned by the High Court, we find no infirmity in the orders of the High Court as also the Tribunal which had held in favour of the respondents directing the appellant State of U.P. to consider their eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Forensic Science and grant them the consequential benefit if found eligible."
13. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is well settled that the Rules came into force at later stage cannot be considered with retrospective effect. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer with effect from 31.12.1984 and is also entitled to further promotions as have been granted to respondent No.2.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402 9 WP. No. 6272 of 2016
14. Consequently, present petition is allowed in the following manner:
(i) Impugned order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed;
(ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to extend promotion, holding it to be valid, to petitioner on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer with effect from 31.12.1984; and
(iii) Respondent No.1 is further directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Commissioner with effect from the date on which respondent No.2 had been promoted as Assistant Commissioner with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits, issue revised PPO & GPO and pay arrears accordingly.
(iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to comply the aforesaid direction within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of realization till actual payment.
15. Before parting with the case, this Court considers it apposite and does so by imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on respondent No.1 which is directed to be paid to petitioner, as similar benefit was extended to other persons denying the same to petitioner as discussed above.
6. Considering the aforesaid and the fact that petitioner has worked on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer due to interim order till his retirement i.e. 30.06.2020 and as petitioner is senior to Jagdish Arora and Omprakash Vyas the impugned order dated 26.08.2016 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to petitioner treating him as retired Assistant Property Tax Officer on 30.06.2020, such as revised PPO, GPO, gratuity, arrears of pension and other retiral benefits etc. within a period of two months Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29402 10 WP. No. 6272 of 2016 from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondents are further directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of realization till actual payment is made.
7. Before parting with the case, this Court considers it apposite and does so by imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on respondent No.2 which is directed to be paid to petitioner, as similar benefit was extended to other persons denying the same to petitioner as discussed above.
8. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
9. Interlocutory Application, if any pending, also stands disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 11/19/2025 6:11:37 PM