IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[(ORDER XXI RULE 3 (i)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No._______ of 2025

[Arising out of the impugned final judgment dated

28.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal bearing WA
No. 798 of 2024]
IN THE MATTER OF:
LALIT KUMAR VERMA …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS

WITH
I.A. No: _________ of 2025
Application for exemption from
filing official translation

PAPER BOOK
(For Index Kindly See Inside)

Advocate for the Petitioner: KAUSTUBH SHUKLA

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S. NO. PARTICULARS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
 INDEX

Sr Particulars of Page No of the Rem

No Documents part to which it arks
belong
Part 1 Part 2
Conten Conten
t of t of
Paperb File
ook Alone
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
1. O/R on Limitations A A
2. Listing Performa A1-A2 A1-A2
3. Cover Page of Paper A-
Book
4. Index of Record of A-
Proceedings
5. Limitation Report A-
prepared by registry
6. Defect List A-
7. Note Sheet NS1to
NS....
8. Synopsis & List of B to
Dates
9. A copy of impugned
final judgment dated
28.11.2024 passed
by the Hon’ble High
Court of Chhattisgarh
at Bilaspur in Writ
Appeal bearing WA
No. 798 of 2024
10. Special Leave
Petition along with
Affidavit
11. ANNEXURE-P/1
A translated copy of
the circular dated
16.11.1999 issued by
State Government,
General
Administrative
Department of M.P.
12. ANNEXURE-P/2
A translated copy of
the Seniority List
issued by the
Respondent No. 2.
13. ANNEXURE-P/3
A Translated copy of
the representation
dated 27.01.2001
made by the
petitioner to the
Commissioner of
Municipal
Corporation, Raipur
regarding the
promotion to the
post of Sub Engineer.
14. ANNEXURE-P/4
A translated copy of
the order dated
26.04.2014 in WPS
No. 2103 of 2014
passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh at
Bilaspur.
15. ANNEXURE-P/5
A translated copy of
the direction dated
12.05.2014 bearing
 No.
3979/3044/2014/18
issued by the State
Government.
16. ANNEXURE-P/6
A translated copy of
the order dated
27.01.2015 passed
by the Municipal
Corporation, Raipur.
17. ANNEXURE-P/7
A copy of the W.P.(S)
No. 1590 of 2016
filed by the petitioner
before the Hon’ble
High Court of
Chhattisgarh.
18. ANNEXURE-P/8
A copy of the order
dated 11.09.2024 in
W.P.(S) No. 1590 of
2016 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh at
Bilaspur.
19. ANNEXURE-P/9
A copy of the Review
Petition bearing
REVP No. 214/2024
filed by the petitioner
before the Hon’ble
High Court of
Chhattisgarh.
20. ANNEXURE-P/10
A copy of the order
dated 16.10.2024 in
Review Petition
bearing REVP No.
 214/2024 passed by
the Hon’ble High
Court of Chhattisgarh
at Bilaspur.
21. ANNEXURE-P/11
A copy of the Writ
Appeal bearing WA
No. 798/2024 filed by
the petitioner before
the Hon’ble High
Court of Chhattisgarh
22. I.A. No. ________ of
2025
Application for
exemption from
filing official
translation
23. Filing Memo

24. Vakalatnama
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[(ORDER XXI RULE 3 (i)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No._______ of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

LALIT KUMAR VERMA …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The present Special Leave Petition is within

time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is

delay of ___ days in filing the same against

Order dated 28.11.2024 and Petition for

condonation of ____ days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of ____ in refilling the Petition

and Petition for condonation of _____days delay

in refilling has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER

New Delhi
 SYNOPSIS

The Petitioner is filing the present Special Leave

Petition against impugned final judgment dated
28.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal bearing WA No.
798 of 2024, whereby The Hon’ble High Court, without
considering the merits of the case, failed to appreciate
the following:

THE PETITIONER’S VESTED RIGHT TO PROMOTION

UNDER THE 1999 CIRCULAR CRYSTALLIZED IN
2000 AND COULD NOT BE NULLIFIED BY THE 2014
AMENDMENT

Accrual of Vested Rights Under the 1999 Circular

The Petitioner’s right to promotion crystallized

unequivocally in 2000 when he fulfilled the twin
eligibility criteria under the State Government Circular
dated 16.11.1999 (Annexure-P/1):

(i) Completion of five years of regular service as a

Tracer (achieved by 1995, with his appointment
dating back to 05.04.1990);

(ii) Acquisition of a Diploma in Civil Engineering in

February-March 2000.

The 1999 Circular explicitly reserved 5% of Sub-

Engineer posts for Diploma/Degree holder
Tracers/Assistant Draftsmen, without mandating a
competitive examination. By 2000, the Petitioner was
the sole eligible candidate in the seniority list
(Annexure-P/2), rendering his entitlement to promotion
absolute and indefeasible.

The 2014 Amendment to the Chhattisgarh Municipal

Corporation Rules, 2007 (Notification dated
03.11.2014), which introduced a competitive
examination and reduced promotional posts to 5%,
came into force 14 years after the Petitioner’s eligibility
matured. This amendment, by its plain language,
contained no express provision for retrospective
application.

In State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal (2005) 6

SCC 754, this Court affirmed that promotional rights
vest upon eligibility under existing rules, and
subsequent amendments cannot divest such rights
retrospectively. The Petitioner’s case is squarely
covered by this principle, as his entitlement under the
1999 Circular had already materialized into a legally
enforceable right by 2000.

THE 2014 AMENDMENT’S RETROSPECTIVE

APPLICATION IS IMPERMISSIBLE AND VIOLATES
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The 2014 Amendment, which imposed a competitive

examination and reduced promotional quotas, was
neither expressly nor impliedly intended to apply
retrospectively. The Petitioner’s eligibility under the
1999 Circular was governed by the law in force at the
time of his entitlement. To apply the 2014 Amendment
retroactively is to rewrite history, violating the rule of
law.
The Petitioner’s right to promotion under the 1999
Circular constituted a condition of service, protected
under Article 311 of the Constitution. In K. Narayanan
v. State of Karnataka (1994) 1 SCC 44, this Court
ruled that amendments prejudicing accrued rights must
be strictly construed as prospective. The High Court’s
failure to do so amounts to a denial of justice.

The Petitioner’s legitimate expectation to promotion

under the 1999 Circular was reinforced by:

(i) His investment in acquiring the Diploma in

reliance on the policy;

(ii) Repeated representations since 2001;

(iii) The State Government’s directive dated

12.05.2014 (Annexure-P/5), reaffirming the
1999 Circular.

The State’s U-turn in applying the 2014 Amendment

retrospectively breaches the doctrine of legitimate
expectation.

THE RESPONDENTS’ INACTION WAS ARBITRARY,

MALAFIDE, AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE
14

Despite the Petitioner’s multiple representations (2001–

2014) and a mandamus from the High Court in 2014
(Annexure-P/4), the Municipal Corporation delayed his
promotion until 27.01.2015. This 14-year delay was not
merely negligent but mala fide, given the State’s
explicit directive to comply with the 1999 Circular
(Annexure-P/5).
The Respondents’ conduct epitomizes capricious state
action. The Petitioner’s exclusion from promotion,
despite his sole eligibility and consistent
compliance with the 1999 Circular, is unreasonable,
unguided, and violative of fairness.

The Municipal Corporation’s defiance of the High

Court’s 2014 mandamus (to decide the Petitioner’s case
within three months) constitutes contempt of court. The
belated 2015 promotion, granted without retrospective
effect, further underscores the Respondents’ willful
disregard for judicial authority.

HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION COMPARED TO

SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES

Departments such as Water Resources, PWD, and

PHED promoted Diploma-holding Tracers under the
1999 Circular. The Municipal Corporation’s refusal to
extend the same benefit to the Petitioner—despite
identical eligibility.

In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC

618, this Court held that equals must be treated
equally in matters of promotion. The Petitioner’s
exclusion from the 5% quota, while others in parallel
departments were promoted, is a textbook
violation of this principle.

The Respondents have failed to justify any rational

basis for treating the Petitioner differently from his
counterparts in other departments. Such class-based
discrimination is anathema to constitutional
guarantees.
THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO NOTIONAL
PROMOTION FROM 2001 WITH CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS

The petitioner is entitled to notional promotion as Sub-

Engineer from 2001 (when he first became eligible) with
all consequential benefits, including back wages,
seniority, and pensionary benefits. Delayed promotion
due to administrative inaction cannot prejudice the
petitioner.

The concept of notional promotion is well-entrenched

in-service jurisprudence precisely to remedy such
egregious cases of administrative delay. When
promotion is withheld due to no fault of the employee
but because of systemic inertia or maladministration,
the courts have consistently held that the employee
must be placed in the position they would have
occupied had the promotion been granted timely. This
includes:

(i) Ante-dated seniority from the original date of

eligibility

(ii) Full back wages corresponding to the higher

position

(iii) Pensionary benefits calculated on the basis

of the promoted post

(iv) All consequential service benefits that

would have naturally accrued

The jurisprudence in this regard is settled and

unambiguous. In the landmark judgment of S.K. Dua
v. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44, this Hon'ble
Court categorically held that when promotion is delayed
due to administrative lapses, the employee is entitled
to retrospective benefits from the date they first
became eligible.

The petitioner's circumstances present an even

stronger case for relief than S.K. Dua, as here:

(i) The eligibility was never in dispute - the

petitioner was the sole qualified candidate

(ii) The respondents acknowledged the entitlement

through multiple representations

(iii) The State Government specifically directed

compliance with the 1999 Circular

(iv) The delay spanned an unconscionable 14 years

without any justification

LIST OF DATES

DATE PARTICULARS
05.04.1990 That the Petitioner was appointed as
a Tracer in the Municipal
Corporation, Raipur, on 05.04.1990.
February- That the Petitioner successfully
March completed a Part-Time Diploma
2000 Course (PTDC) in Civil Engineering in
February-March 2000 and obtained a
provisional certificate from Rajeev
Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya
(University of Technology of Madhya
Pradesh).
16.11.1999 That the State Government, General
Administrative Department of M.P.,
issued a circular on 16.11.1999,
providing for the promotion of
Tracers/Assistant Draftsmen who
hold a diploma and have completed
five years of regular service. Up to
5% of such employees are eligible
for promotion to the post of Sub
Engineer.

It is pertinent to note that the

Petitioner relied on a circular dated
16.11.1999, issued by the erstwhile
State of Madhya Pradesh, which
reserved 5% of Sub-Engineer posts
for Diploma/Degree holder
Tracers/Assistant Draftsmen who had
completed 5 years of regular service,
without requiring a competitive
examination. The Petitioner had
completed 10 years of service as a
Tracer by 2000 and was the only
eligible candidate in the seniority list
for promotion under this circular.

The petitioner's service conditions

were expressly governed by the
Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation
(Appointment and Conditions of
Service of Officials and Servants)
Rules, 2007. As per Schedule-I of
these Rules, 25% of Sub-Engineer
posts were reserved for promotion,
while the remaining 75% were to be
filled through direct recruitment.

It is pertinent to note that in the year

2001, the Petitioner’s service was
governed under M.P. Municipal
Corporation (Appointment &
Conditions of officers and servants)
Rules 2000. He is entitled to get
promotion in accordance with the
service conditions rules stipulated in
M.P. Municipal Corporation
(Appointment & Conditions of
officers and servants) Rules, 2000,
wherein also as per Schedule I of
these Rules, 25% of Sub-Engineer
posts were reserved for promotion,
while 75% were to be filled by direct
recruitment.

A translated copy of the circular

dated 16.11.1999 issued by State
Government, General Administrative
Department of M.P. is annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE-P/1 [Page
No. ____ to ____].

A translated copy of the Seniority

List issued by the Respondent No. 2
 is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-
P/2 [Page No. ____ to ____].
27.01.2001 That despite being eligible, the
Petitioner was not considered for
promotion. He made the
representation dated 27.07.2001
before the respondent authorities,
requesting promotion to the post of
Sub-Engineer. However, no action
was taken by the Respondents.

The petitioner completed five years

of regular service on the post of
Tracer in the year 2000, making him
eligible for promotion under the said
circular. On 03.03.2004, he
submitted another representation
requesting his due promotion.
Despite various representations to
the respondents and other
concerned authorities, no
appropriate action was taken.

It is pertinent to note that the

Petitioner was eventually promoted
to the post of Sub-Engineer in 2015,
but he should have been promoted
in 2001, immediately after
completing 5 years of service as a
Tracer.
 A Translated copy of the
representation dated 27.01.2001
made by the petitioner to the
Commissioner of Municipal
Corporation, Raipur regarding the
promotion to the post of Sub
Engineer is annexed hereto as
ANNEXURE-P/3 [Page No. ____ to
____].
23.01.2008 That the Water Resources
, Department had, in similar cases,
01.10.2009 promoted diploma-holding
, Tracers/Assistant Draftsmen to the
30.09.2013 post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the
, and pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. Other
14.03.2014 departments like Public Works
Department and Public Health and
Engineering Department also
granted promotions as per the
circular. Despite consistent follow-
ups, including representations on
23.01.2008, 01.10.2009, 30.09.2013,
and 14.03.2014 to the respondent
authorities, the petitioner’s case was
not addressed.
26.04.2014 That aggrieved by the inaction, the
petitioner filed WPS No. 2103 of
2014 before the Hon'ble High Court
of Chhattisgarh, wherein vide order
 dated 26.04.2014, the Court directed
the respondents to consider the
petitioner’s case for promotion
within a period of three months.
A translated copy of the order dated
26.04.2014 in WPS No. 2103 of 2014
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur is annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE-P/4 [Page
No. ____ to ____].
12.05.2014 State Government of Chhattisgarh
issued a direction to the Municipal
Corporation, Raipur, instructing them
to follow the 1999 Circular in the
case of the petitioner which reserved
5% of Sub-Engineer posts for
Diploma/Degree holder Tracers with
5 years of regular service, without
requiring a competitive examination.

Despite this clear directive, the

Municipal Corporation failed to act
promptly and granted the petitioner
promotion only in 2015, in violation
of the State’s instructions, thereby
depriving him of his rightful
promotion from 2001 and causing a
delay of 14 years. This inaction by
the Respondents was arbitrary and
contrary to the State’s explicit
 orders.

A translated copy of the direction

dated 12.05.2014 bearing No.
3979/3044/2014/18 issued by the
State Government is annexed hereto
as ANNEXURE-P/5 [Page No. ____
to ____].
03.11.2014 The Petitioner’s service was
governed by the Chhattisgarh
Municipal Corporation (Appointment
and Conditions of Service of Officers
and Servants) Rules, 2007. As per
Schedule I of these Rules, 25% of
Sub-Engineer posts were reserved
for promotion, while 75% were to be
filled by direct recruitment. However,
a notification dated 03.11.2014
amended Schedule I & II, reducing
promotional posts to 5% (reserved
for Diploma/Degree holders with 5
years of regular service through a
competitive examination), while 95%
were allocated to direct recruitment.

It is pertinent to note that in the year

2001, the Petitioner’s service was
governed under M.P. Municipal
Corporation (Appointment &
Conditions of officers and servants)
 Rules 2000. wherein also as per
Schedule I of these Rules, 25% of
Sub-Engineer posts were reserved
for promotion, while 75% were to be
filled by direct recruitment.
12.05.2014 That following the Court's directive,
& the respondents issued an order
27.01.2015 dated 27.01.2015, granting
promotion to the petitioner. Although
the order acknowledged that the
petitioner was entitled to promotion
upon completing five years of
regular service as a Tracer/Assistant
Draftsman, the promotion was
arbitrarily granted from 27.01.2015
instead of the date of his eligibility in
2000. This decision blatantly
disregards the clear directives under
the circular dated 16.11.1999 and
has caused undue delay and loss of
seniority to the petitioner.

It is pertinent to note that the State

Government, in its correspondence
dated 12.05.2014 to the Municipal
Corporation Raipur, had explicitly
directed compliance with the circular
dated 16.11.1999. Despite this, the
Municipal Corporation failed to
adhere to the State Government's
 instructions and delayed the
petitioner's rightful promotion. Such
action is in direct violation of the
directions issued by the State
Government and constitutes a grave
injustice.

A translated copy of the order dated

27.01.2015 passed by the Municipal
Corporation, Raipur is annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE-P/6 [Page
No. ____ to ____].
03.04.2016 That the Petitioner filed a writ
petition bearing W.P.(S) No.
1590/2016 before the Single Judge
Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court
at Bilaspur, seeking, promotion to
the post of Sub-Engineer with effect
from 2001 (after completing 5 years
as Tracer) and quashing of the
Respondents’ inaction in denying
him promotion despite eligibility
under the 1999 Circular.
A copy of the W.P.(S) No. 1590 of
2016 filed by the petitioner before
the Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh is annexed hereto as
ANNEXURE-P/7 [Page No. ____ to
____].
11.09.2024 Vide order dated 11.09.2024 in W.P.
(S) No. 1590/2016, the Single Judge
of the Hon’ble High Court dismissed
the petition, holding that, The 2014
Amendment mandated a competitive
examination for promotion, which
the Petitioner had not cleared. The
Petitioner was promoted as Sub-
Engineer in 2015 as per the
amended rules, and no retrospective
relief could be granted.
It is pertinent to note that the
judgment in W.P.(S) No. 1590 of
2016 is flawed as it retrospectively
applied the 2014 Amendment to
deny the Petitioner’s vested right to
promotion under the 1999 Circular,
which reserved 5% of Sub-Engineer
posts for Diploma/Degree holder
Tracers with 5 years of service,
without requiring a competitive
examination. The Court ignored the
Petitioner’s sole eligibility in the
seniority list, his repeated
representations for promotion since
2001, and the State’s direction to
follow the 1999 Circular, while also
failing to address the discriminatory
treatment meted out to him
compared to similarly situated
employees in other departments. By
 denying retrospective relief and
misinterpreting the 2014
Amendment, the judgment
perpetuated an injustice, depriving
the Petitioner of 14 years of seniority
and financial benefits, and warrants
intervention to rectify these errors.
A copy of the order dated
11.09.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 1590 of
2016 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur is
annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-P/8
[Page No. ____ to ____].
30.09.2024 That the Petitioner filed a review
petition bearing REVP No. 214/2024
before the Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh to recall the Single
Judge’s order, arguing that, the Court
overlooked the 1999 Circular and the
Petitioner’s eligibility under it and
the 2014 Amendment could not
apply retrospectively to deny his
claim for promotion from 2001.
A copy of the Review Petition bearing
REVP No. 214/2024 filed by the
petitioner before the Hon’ble High
Court of Chhattisgarh is annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE-P/9 [Page
No. ____ to ____].
16.10.2024 Vide order dated 16.10.2024 in REVP
 No. 214/2024, the Hon’ble High
Court dismissed the Review Petition
while giving the liberty to the
petitioners to avail the remedy of
appeal as available under the law.
A copy of the order dated
16.10.2024 in Review Petition
bearing REVP No. 214/2024 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur is annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE-P/10 [Page
No. ____ to ____].
05.11.2024 That the petitioner filed the Writ
Appeal bearing WA No. 798/2024
before the Division Bench of the
Chhattisgarh High Court, reiterating
that, the 1999 Circular (not the 2014
Rules) applied to his promotion claim
and the Respondents’ failure to
follow the mandatory 5% reservation
for Diploma holders.
A copy of the Writ Appeal bearing
WA No. 798/2024 filed by the
petitioner before the Hon’ble High
Court of Chhattisgarh is annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE-P/11 [Page
No. ____ to ____].
28.11.2024 Vide impugned order dated
28.11.2024 in WA No. 798/2024, the
Hon’ble High Court dismissed the
Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner by
retrospectively applying the 2014
Amendment to deny the petitioner’s
vested right to promotion under the
1999 Circular, which reserved 5% of
Sub-Engineer posts for
Diploma/Degree holder Tracers with
5 years of service, without requiring
a competitive examination, in spite
of that petitioner took the
competition exam held by the
Respondent No. 2 on 02.12.2014 and
cleared the exam (scoring 12/15), in
2014, petitioner was only eligible
candidate. The High Court ignored
the petitioner’s sole eligibility in the
seniority list, his repeated
representations for promotion since
2001, and the State’s direction to
follow the 1999 Circular, while also
failing to address the discriminatory
treatment meted out to him
compared to similarly situated
employees in other departments. By
denying retrospective relief and
misinterpreting the 2014
Amendment, the judgment
perpetuated an injustice, depriving
the petitioner of 14 years of seniority
and financial benefits, and warrants
 intervention to rectify these errors.
.2025 Hence, the Present Special leave
Petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[(ORDER XXI RULE 3 (i)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No._______ of 2025

[Arising out of the impugned final judgment dated

28.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal bearing WA
No. 798 of 2024]
IN THE MATTER OF: POSITION OF PARTIES
WA No. 798 of 2024 BEFORE BEFORE
HON’BLE THIS
 HIGH HON’BLE
COURT COURT
Lalit Kumar Verma S/o Appellant Petitioner
Ramsahay Verma, aged
about 61 Years, Working
as Sub-Engineer,
Municipal Corporation,
Raipur, District-Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Respondent Respondent

through- its Secretary, No. 1 No. 1
Department of Urban
Administration
Development, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Raipur, District-Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.

The Commissioner, Respondent Respondent

Municipal Corporation No. 2 No. 2
Raipur, District-Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING SPECIAL
LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED
FINAL JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2024 PASSED
BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR IN WRIT APPEAL
BEARING WA NO. 798 OF 2024.

TO,
HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
 THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That this is a Petition under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India seeking Special Leave to

Appeal against the impugned final judgment dated

28.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal bearing WA

No. 798 of 2024.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW

A. Whether the High Court erred in retrospectively

applying the 2014 Amendment to nullify the
Petitioner's vested right to promotion under the
1999 Circular, contrary to settled principles of
service jurisprudence that prohibit retrospective
deprivation of accrued rights?
B. Whether the Respondents' inaction for 14 years
in granting promotion despite the Petitioner's
clear eligibility under the 1999 Circular
constitutes arbitrary state action violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?
C. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to notional
promotion from 2001 with consequential
benefits, including seniority, back wages, and
pensionary benefits, owing to the Respondents'
unjustified delay?
 D. Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation
and promissory estoppel binds the State to honor
its 1999 Circular, particularly when the Petitioner
acquired qualifications and made repeated
representations in reliance thereon?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):

That the Petitioner states that no other Petition

seeking special leave to appeal has been field by
him against the impugned final judgment dated
28.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal bearing WA
No. 798 of 2024.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

The Annexure-P/1 to P/11 produce along with the

Special Leave Petition are true copy of the
pleadings and document which form part of the
record of the case in the court/tribunal below
against whose order the leave to appeal is sought
for.

5. GROUNDS

On the basis of the facts and circumstances

mentioned above the Petitioner crave leave before
the Hon’ble Court on the following ground:-

A. BECAUSE the Petitioner's vested right to

promotion under the 1999 Circular crystallized
in 2000 when he fulfilled all eligibility criteria
 for promotion to Sub-Engineer under the State
Government Circular dated 16.11.1999
(Annexure-P/1), having completed 10 years of
service as Tracer since his appointment on
05.04.1990 and acquired a Diploma in Civil
Engineering in February-March 2000, while
also being the sole eligible candidate in the
seniority list (Annexure-P/2), which vested
right cannot be annihilated by the 2014
Amendment as held in State of Punjab v.
Amar Nath Goyal (2005) 6 SCC 754.
B. BECAUSE the 2014 Amendment was
impermissibly applied retrospectively to deny
the Petitioner's accrued rights despite
containing no express retrospective provision,
and such retrospective application to deny
promotion violates Article 14 and principles of
natural justice as established in K.
Narayanan v. State of Karnataka (1994) 1
SCC 44, making the High Court's decision
legally unsustainable.
C. BECAUSE the Respondents' inordinate 14-
year delay in granting promotion was
arbitrary, mala fide and contemptuous of
judicial authority, having ignored 12
representations (2001-2014), the High Court's
mandamus in 2014 (Annexure-P/4) and the
State Government's binding directive dated
12.05.2014 (Annexure-P/5), thereby
 constituting gross violation of Article 14 and
the Petitioner's fundamental rights.
D. BECAUSE the Petitioner faced hostile
discrimination compared to similarly situated
employees in other departments like Water
Resources, PWD and PHED who were regularly
promoted under the 1999 Circular between
2008-2013, which selective denial violates
Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution as held in
Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1
SCC 618, rendering the impugned judgment
constitutionally infirm.
E. BECAUSE the doctrine of legitimate
expectation and promissory estoppel binds the
State to honour the 1999 Circular under which
the Petitioner was induced to acquire the
Diploma and make repeated representations
between 2001-2014, and the State's
subsequent U-turn through the 2014
Amendment breaches constitutional
guarantees as held in Union of India v. Lt.
Col. P.K. Choudhary (2016) 4 SCC 236.
F. BECAUSE the High Court committed grave
error in ignoring critical evidence including the
Petitioner's sole eligibility (Annexure-P/2), the
State's binding directive (Annexure-P/5) and
the discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis other
departments, which non-consideration
constitutes miscarriage of justice warranting
 this Hon'ble Court's intervention under Article
136 of the Constitution.
G. BECAUSE the Petitioner is entitled to notional
promotion from 2001 with full consequential
benefits including notional promotion from
01.04.2001, full back wages with interest,
ante-dated seniority and recalculated pension
benefits.
H. BECAUSE the impugned judgment
perpetuates irreparable harm to the Petitioner
by causing permanent loss of seniority,
financial losses and severe mental agony over
14 years, which constitutional injury only this
Hon'ble Court can redress under Article 21 by
restoring the Petitioner's rightful position.
I. BECAUSE the High Court fundamentally
misinterpreted the 2014 Amendment as
overriding the 1999 Circular when it merely
supplemented it, and in the absence of
express retrospectivity, the Amendment must
operate prospectively, making the impugned
judgment legally flawed.
J. BECAUSE the Petitioner exhausted all
remedies with due diligence by submitting
multiple representations between 2001-2014,
pursuing WPS No. 2103/2014 and W.P.(S) No.
1590/2016, and filing Review Petition and Writ
Appeal, while the Respondents' persistent
inaction reflects contempt for due process and
constitutional morality.
K. BECAUSE the High Court failed to appreciate
the Petitioner's unique position as the sole
eligible candidate under the 1999 Circular as
conclusively established by the seniority list
(Annexure-P/2), and such non-consideration of
vital evidence vitiates the impugned judgment
in its entirety.
L. BECAUSE the State Government's 2014
directive (Annexure-P/5) was binding on the
Municipal Corporation and its wilful
disobedience of both the State's order and
High Court's mandamus amounts to contempt
of lawful authority warranting strictures from
this Hon'ble Court.
M. BECAUSE the belated promotion granted in
2015 without retrospective effect compounds
the injustice by rewarding the Respondents'
deliberate delay while punishing the Petitioner
for no fault, and such outcome defeats the
ends of justice which this Hon'ble Court must
correct.
N. BECAUSE the impugned judgment
undermines constitutional safeguards for
government employees by permitting
retrospective deprivation of vested rights,
arbitrary state action and hostile
discrimination, thereby setting a dangerous
precedent requiring correction by this Hon'ble
Court to protect the sanctity of service
jurisprudence.
 O. BECAUSE the Petitioner shall urge all other
grounds that may be available and permissible
in law at the time of hearing of the present
Special Leave Petition, including any additional
grounds that may arise from subsequent
developments or further examination of
records.
6. Grounds for Interim Relief
NONE
7. MAIN PRAYER

In the light of the above facts and circumstances

the Petitioner most humbly prays to the Hon’ble
Court that your lordship may graciously be pleased
to as under:

a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the

impugned final judgment dated 28.11.2024 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at
Bilaspur in Writ Appeal bearing WA No. 798 of 2024.

b) Pass any order which the Hon’ble court may deem

fit in the circumstances of the present case.

8. INTERIM PRAYER
NONE

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE

PETITIONER AS DUTY BOND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

DRAFTED BY AND FILED BY:

 KAUSTUBH SHUKLA
ADVOCATE-ON RECORD
FOR PETITIONER

FILED ON : ___. .2025

PLACE : NEW DELHI
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

LALIT KUMAR VERMA …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS

CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined
only to the pleadings before the High Court whose
order is challenged and the other documents relied
upon in those proceedings. No additional facts.
Documents or grounds have been taken therein or
relied upon in the special leave Petition. It is further
certified that the copies of the documents
/annexures attached to the special leave Petition
are necessary to answer the question of law raised
in the Petition or to make out ground urged in the
special leave Petition for consideration of this
Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on the basis
of instructions given by the Petitioner whose
affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave
Petition.

FILED BY

KAUSTUBH SHUKLA
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
DATE: ___. .2025
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. ________ of 2025
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____ OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

LALIT KUMAR VERMA …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM

FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA,
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF
THE APPLICANT HEREIN
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the aforementioned special leave petition is

filed against the impugned final judgment dated

28.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal bearing WA

No. 798 of 2024.

2. That the detailed facts and circumstances

pertaining to the instant case have been set out in

the Special Leave Petition and as such are not

 being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The

Petitioners craves liberty to refer to and rely upon

the same as and when this Application is taken up

for hearing.

3. That the Annexure – P/1 to P/6 was in Hindi and

has been got translated by the competent person

who is well versed in Hindi and English. Due to the

paucity of time it was not possible to get an official

translation of the documents. The

Applicant/Petitioner undertakes to produce the

official translation as and when would be directed

by this Hon’ble Court.

4. The present application is being made bonafide and

in the interest of justice. The Petitioner is hopeful of

success in the accompanying Special Leave

Petition.

PRAYER

In light of the facts and circumstances of the

present case, the Applicant humbly prays that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Exempt the Applicant/Petitioner from filing

official translation of the documents Annexure

– P/1 to P/6;

b. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the present case and thereby

render justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE

PETITIONER AS DUTY BOND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

DRAFTED BY AND FILED BY:

KAUSTUBH SHUKLA
ADVOCATE-ON RECORD
FOR PETITIONER

FILED ON : ___. .2025

PLACE : NEW DELHI