1 2025:CGHC:45207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2563 of 2018  N.R. Patel S/o Late Shri T.R. Patel, Aged About 50 Years R/o Ganga Nagar, Sector - 2, Near Mahaveer Apartment, Mangla Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Engineer Hasdev Kachar, Water Resources Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Mr. Jone Lakra, Working As Assistant Grade - Ii, Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources Division, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Mr. Narendra Prasad Working As Assistant Grade - Ii, Office Of Chief Engineer Hasdev Kachar, Water Resources Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04. 09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire records of the case. 10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to place petitioner’s name in the seniority list as on 01/04/2017. Hon’ble Court may SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.08 15:05:40 +0530 2 further quash the letter dated 31/10/2017. 10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct responsible authority to consider the name of petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – II from the date of his junior have been given promotion. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent to pay other consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief which may Hon’ble Court think fit in the circumstances.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade – III vide order dated 29.03.1990 in the Office of Executive Engineer, Narmada Development Division No. 11, Punasa, District – Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh. He would further submit that he opted for State of Chhattisgarh after re-organization of State of Madhya Pradesh and such order was passed on 29.04.2006, and thereafter, he was posted at Raipur in the office of Chief Engineer Communication. He would also submit that the services of the petitioner were transferred to the office of Chief Engineer of Minimata Bango Pariyojna, District Bilaspur vide order dated 13.06.2006. Mr. Singh would further submit that in the gradation list of A.G. III published with effect from 01.04.2017, name of the petitioner was at serial No. 9, but in the gradation list published on 30.11.2017, he was placed at serial No. 40. He would also submit that the similarly situated A.G. III, whose services were allocated from State of Madhya Pradesh to State of Chhattisgarh, have been placed above to the petitioner though they are juniors. He would contend that a representation was made by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 on 08.11.2017, but till date it has not been decided. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent No. 2 to decide his representation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Ms. 3 Neelima Singh Thakur would submit that the petitioner has been placed at the bottom in the gradation list according to circular issued by State of Chhattisgarh dated 09.06.2008, which states that the transferred or allocated employees would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. She would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that representation made by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 is still pending consideration; therefore, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days. The petitioner would be at liberty to move a fresh representation, if so advised. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant