1 2025:CGHC:38769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 784 of 2025 1 - Chandni Samundre W/o Aatish Kumar Samundre Aged About 41 Years Posted As Assistant Office Superintendent At Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College District Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner, Medical Education Department North Block Sector- 19, Swasth Bhawan, Second Floor, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dean, Government Medical College, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jwala Prasad Ratre S/o Shri Ramnarayan Ratre Aged About 45 Years Working As Assistant Grade-2, At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, Smriti Chikitsalaya, Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/08/2025 1. By way of this MCC, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- “a. The order dated 08.05.2025, passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.S. No. 3311 of 2024 (Chandni Samundre vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), be suitably modified/clarified to the effect that the petitioner stands restituted/restored to the post of Assistant Office Superintendent in terms of the promotion order dated 18.07.2017 and consequences thereto to follow in paragraph 10 of the said; and b. Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that, in the interest of justice, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the concerned authorities to decide the pending representation of the applicant within a stipulated time frame. He further submits that despite submission of detailed representations dated 10th May, 2025 and 19th May, 2025, the authorities have failed to take any decision or initiate any action thereon, thereby causing unnecessary hardship and delay to the applicant. Therefore, a time-bound direction from this Hon’ble 3 Court would serve the ends of justice and ensure that the applicant’s grievance is addressed without further delay. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submits that the representations dated 10th May, 2025 and 19th May, 2025 are under active consideration by the competent authorities. He further submits that the administrative process involves certain procedural formalities which require reasonable time for due compliance. It is therefore incorrect to allege inaction or delay on the part of the State. Moreover, the applicant has approached this Hon’ble Court prematurely without affording sufficient time to the authorities to take a reasoned decision. In such circumstances, there is no justification for issuance of any time-bound direction, and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the nature of the relief sought by the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate to direct the concerned respondent authorities to take an expeditious decision on the pending representations of the applicant. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representations, in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of 4 receipt of copy of this order along with a copy of the representation, and communicate the outcome to the applicant forthwith. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 6. Accordingly, the MCC filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat