1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 778 of 2022 1 - Dilip Tiwari S/o Late Naresh Chandra Tiwari, Aged About 62 Years Retired Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, R/o Hig 33, Rajkishore Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate, Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent-authorities to pay the difference amount for the period from 2015 to 2018 holding that the petitioner is legally entitled for same with interest and to quash the order impugned dated 28.03.2018 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation. -2- 10.3 Any other relief which may deems fit may also be awarded along with cost of the petition.” 2. Ms. Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Revenue Inspector, thereafter, he was handed over charge of Chief Municipal Officer, Gharghoda on 03.10.2013. She would contend that though the petitioner discharged the functions of Chief Municipal Officer but he was not paid salary accordingly. It is contended that a representation was made by the petitioner addressed to respondent No.1 on 27.08.2018, 29.11.2018, 26.12.2018, and 22.11.2021 but till date, those representations have not been considered and decided by respondent No.1. She would pray that a direction may be issued to respondent No.1 to decide pending representations of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose submissions. He would submit that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Chief Municipal Officer, therefore, he is not entitled for arrears of salary and other allowances attached to the post of Chief Municipal Officer. He would contend that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration limited grievance raised by Ms. Harneet Kaur, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent 3 No.1 to decide pending representations of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall decide the pending representations made by the petitioner on 27.08.2018, 29.11.2018, 26.12.2018, and 22.11.2021 expeditiously preferably within a period of 120 days. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha