ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been moved seeking following reliefs: “a. To quash/set aside the communication dated 28.11.2022 numbered 1903@143@2019@,d@4 , made by Respondent No.2 to Petitioner; and b. To direct Respondent State to consider the candidature of Petitioner for grant of Selection Grade (post of Upper Collector) in terms of the decision/mandate of the Hon’ble Cabinet of Respondent State as decided/mandated in its meeting dated 07.07.2022 and, consequently, award the said grade/post to Petitioner retrospectively in parity with his batch/cadre/mates along with all consequential benefits arising thereof and connected thereto; and c. To declare/hold that Petitioner is a member of Batch- 2013 of the State Administrative Service and, thereupon, direct the Respondent State to extend the consequential benefits as accrued upon the Petitioner; d. To pass any other order in favour of Petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost. e. ... 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission in the year 2008 conducted a competitive examination for the posts of Deputy Collector and other various posts and result of the examination was declared in the year 2013. The overall rank of the Petitioner in the merit list was 15. He was placed in the wait list at Sl.No.1. One of the selected candidate holding rank of 12 chose not to join the service of the post of Deputy Collector and, therefore, the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Collector vide order dated 29.1.2014. He gave joining on the post of Deputy Collector on 3.2.2014. The Cabinet of the Chhattisgarh State decided to relax the rules by giving relaxation of a period of 6 months in service for grant of Selection Grade to the officers of the State Administrative Service Batch 2013 and in pursuance of which a meeting of Special Departmental Promotion Committee was convened. The Promotion Committee in its meeting dated 16.8.2022 granted Selection Grade to the batch-mates of the Petitioner and posted them on the post of Additional Collector. Subsequently, it was informed that the claim of the Petitioner has not been considered on the ground that he joined the services on 3.2.2014. Thus, he is not an officer of 2013 batch, rather he is an officer of 2014 batch. Hence, the instant petition. 3. Subsequently, it was informed that the claim of the Petitioner has not been considered on the ground that he joined the services on 3.2.2014. Thus, he is not an officer of 2013 batch, rather he is an officer of 2014 batch. Hence, the instant petition. 3. It was submitted by Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the officers who have been granted benefit of Selection Grade pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 7.7.2022 as also the Petitioner had participated in the competitive examination of 2008 and result was declared in 2013. The Petitioner had also secured rank 15 in the merit list which was declared in the year 2013 itself. Since he was kept in the wait list at Sl.No.1, subsequently, one of the selected candidate holding rank of 12 in the merit list chose not to join the service and the Petitioner was offered appointment and he joined the service on 3.2.2014. Merely on the ground that he joined the service on 3.2.2014 the Respondents have not treated him the officer of 2013 batch, which is arbitrary. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel that for all purposes the Petitioner was integral to the batch of 2013 of State Administrative Service and had undergone departmental training and undertaken departmental examination along with the batch of 2013 only. He further submitted that the similarly situated candidate Arun Kumar Markam, a member of the State Administrative Service Batch 2013 too was given his joining on 24.1.2014, but, the Promotion Committee considered and granted him Selection Grade and also granted him promotion. Both the Petitioner and Arun Kumar Markam were granted Senior Pay Scale on the same date/time. He further submitted that the delay occurred in joining of the Petitioner in the service was due to belated clearance of the wait list by the Respondents. Therefore, it is prayed by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondents/State may be directed to consider the candidature of the Petitioner treating him as an officer of 2013 batch and also grant him Selection Grade as has been granted to his batch-mates of 2013 treating him also as an officer of the batch of 2013. 4. Therefore, it is prayed by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondents/State may be directed to consider the candidature of the Petitioner treating him as an officer of 2013 batch and also grant him Selection Grade as has been granted to his batch-mates of 2013 treating him also as an officer of the batch of 2013. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/State opposing the arguments raised on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the service of the Petitioner is governed by the Chhattisgarh State Administrative Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 (henceforth ‘1975 Rules’). As contained in Rule 21A(1) of 1975 Rules only such officers of the State Administrative Service shall be eligible for consideration for appointment to Selection Grade of the service as may have completed on the 1st of January of the year of selection, 10 years of service in the Senior Scale of the service. The State Cabinet decided to relax a period of 6 months in service for grant of Selection Grade to the officers of 2013 batch and in case of Arun Kumar Markam this relaxation was for a period of 7 months. She further submitted that a Departmental Promotion Committee was conducted on 16.8.2022 for consideration of eligible officers after the relaxation in service granted by the State Cabinet. The minimum period of service was to be calculated from 1st day of January from the appointment of the officer till 1.1.2023. The Petitioner was appointed in the year 2014 and others were appointed in the year 2013. Therefore, on the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting, the officers who had joined the service in the year 2013 completed the minimum required period of service of 10 years and the Petitioner was not eligible for the same. Thus, on this ground only the matter of the Petitioner has not been put up before the Departmental Promotion Committee. 5. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the entire documents available with due care. 6. Undisputedly, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission conducted the examination in the year 2008 and result of the examination was declared in the year 2013. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner held the overall rank of 15 in the merit list and in the wait list he was placed at Sl.No.1. 6. Undisputedly, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission conducted the examination in the year 2008 and result of the examination was declared in the year 2013. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner held the overall rank of 15 in the merit list and in the wait list he was placed at Sl.No.1. It is also not in dispute that one of the selected candidates holding rank of 12 in the merit list did not join the service and, therefore, the appointment order of the Petitioner was issued vide order dated 29.1.2014. The reply of the State is silent on the point that when did the candidate holding rank of 12 in the merit list inform that he shall not join the service. The communication dated 12.12.2013 appearing at page 3 of the covering memo dated 1.12.2023 submitted by the Petitioner shows that Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission had informed on 12.12.2013 to the Secretary, General Administration Department that since the candidate of Sl.No.12 of the merit list has not joined the service, in his place the Petitioner who is at Sl.No.1 in the wait list can be appointed. The said communication of the Commission was received on 17.12.2013, but appointment order of the Petitioner was issued by the Respondents/State on 29.1.2014. Thus, it is quite clear that the delay in issuance of the appointment order of the Petitioner was on the part of the State Government only. If in December, 2013 itself the appointment order of the Petitioner had been issued and he would have joined the service in December, 2013 itself then he would have become an officer of 2013 batch itself. Further, the document annexed with the writ petition also shows that one other officer Arun Kumar Markam also joined his service in the month of January, 2014, but, the Promotion Committee extending him benefit of relaxation of 7 months in place of 6 months granted him Selection Grade. 7. Considering the above, it is quite clear that the Petitioner is the officer of 2013 batch itself. It is the State Government who issued his appointment order belatedly and, therefore, he joined the service in February, 2014. 7. Considering the above, it is quite clear that the Petitioner is the officer of 2013 batch itself. It is the State Government who issued his appointment order belatedly and, therefore, he joined the service in February, 2014. Further considering the fact that Arun Kumar Markam who also had joined the service in the year 2014 has been granted Selection Grade by extending him benefit of relaxation of 7 months in place of 6 months, but, the Petitioner, who also joined the service in 2014 itself, has been deprived of the same benefit. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The State/Respondents are directed to hold a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee to review the case of the Petitioner for granting him Selection Grade if he fulfills the other criteria which had been fixed by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting dated 16.8.2022. If he is granted Selection Grade then he shall also be extended all the benefits which have been extended to the officers of 2013 batch with effect from the date when the officers of 2013 batch were granted those benefits. This exercise shall be done within an outer limit of 6 months from today.