Chhattisgarh HC sets aside CREDA’s retrospective seniority order, upholds rights of direct recruit engineers

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 261 | 2026:CGHC:17588

April 17, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside a decision granting retrospective seniority to a group of engineers in the Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (CREDA), holding that such a move was legally unsustainable and prejudicial to direct recruits.

In a judgment delivered on April 17, 2026, Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal allowed a writ petition filed by six Assistant Engineers who had challenged the grant of notional seniority to three promotee engineers.

The dispute arose within Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency over inter se seniority. The petitioners had been directly appointed as Assistant Engineers in April 2013 through a formal recruitment process. The private respondents, on the other hand, began their service as Junior Engineers and were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer only on February 11, 2015. Despite this, CREDA issued an order in October 2019 granting the promotee engineers notional seniority from January 1, 2013, and subsequently placed them above the petitioners in a revised seniority list issued in February 2020.

Examining the legality of this decision, the High Court reiterated the settled position in service law that seniority ordinarily flows from the date an employee enters a cadre. The Court noted that the private respondents were not part of the Assistant Engineer cadre until their promotion in 2015, and therefore could not be assigned seniority from a date prior to their actual entry into the cadre. It further observed that the governing service rules did not permit the grant of retrospective seniority, making the impugned decision legally untenable.

The Court also underscored the adverse impact of such retrospective seniority on direct recruits. Since the petitioners had been validly appointed in 2013 and were already serving in the cadre, placing the promotees above them on a notional basis would unfairly disturb the established hierarchy. This, the Court held, was contrary to principles of fairness and equality in public employment.

Additionally, the Court found that the decision to grant notional seniority had been taken without affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

On these grounds, the Court quashed both the October 2019 order granting retrospective seniority and the February 2020 seniority list. It directed CREDA to prepare a fresh seniority list by placing the petitioners above the private respondents in accordance with their actual dates of appointment. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Case Reference : WPS No. 1827 of 2020, Deepak Sahu and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others; Counsels: For Petitioners – Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate; For Respondent No.1/State – Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer; For Respondents No.2 & 3 – Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate; For Respondents No.4 to 6 – Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla and Mr. Ravi Singh, Advocates.