LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/pawan-kumar-agrawal-anr-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-20250423/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
23 April 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 5478 of 2025
Result
Partly allowed
Bench
Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Augustine George Masih
Citation
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1622 : 2025 INSC 545
Acts & Sections
Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial (Recruitment… Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General… Constitution
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1622 : 2025 INSC 545
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards the date from which the appellants are entitled to seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division); also whether, the appellants are entitled to seniority over the batch of Judicial Officers appointed on 10.07.2012.
Headnote

Judicial Services – Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Seniority – Appellants selected in the selection process of 2003 were appointed in terms of the order of High Court dtd.02.05.2012 wherein it was also stated that their seniority was to be reckoned from the date of appointment – Delay in appointment by State – Appellants appointed in July 2013 – Placed below candidates selected in 2006, 2008 and 2012 – Appellants’ claim for seniority was rejected on ground that the order of High Court stating that the seniority will be determined from the date of appointment had attained finality as the same was not challenged – Date from which the appellants are entitled to seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division): Held: Order passed by the High Court attained finality – Seniority of the appellants was to be reckoned from the date of their appointment – No merit in the claim of the appellants with regard to the grant of seniority vis-à-vis candidates who were appointed prior to the date of the order of the High Court – Appellants’ writ petition was decided on 02.05.2012 – As such, the State ought to have appointed the appellants within a reasonable time – Though, the State had challenged the said order in an SLP before this Court, the order of the High Court was never stayed – SLP was dismissed on 30.11.2012 – Even thereafter, for around 8 months, no action was taken by the State in issuing an order of appointment to the appellants – In the meantime, 2012 batch was appointed on 10.07.2012 i.e., after more than 2 months from the date of the order of the High Court – The right to be appointed accrued to the appellants on the date of the order of the High Court i.e. 02.05.2012 – The period between the date of the order of the High Court and the appointment of the batch of 2012 is more than

2 months – Delay in giving effect to the order of the High Court by the State cannot act to the prejudice of the appellants – In the seniority list, the appellants be shown senior to the Judicial Officers appointed on 10.07.2012 – Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 – Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. [Paras 10, 12-16]

Keywords: Seniority · Civil Judge (Junior Division) · Seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) · Seniority to be reckoned from the date of appointment · Seniority list · Judicial Officers · Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission · Recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Appointment date · Delay in appointment · Right to be appointed

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The present appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 30th July 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”) in Writ Appeal No. 341 of 2019, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants thereby affirming the order dated 13th May 2019 rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3620 of 2019. 4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: 4.1 On 2 nd April
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →