1 2026:CGHC:584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14163 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Nayak S/o. Late Bhagwati Prasad Nayak, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Sirpur Road, Ward No. 15, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 493335 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nagar Panchayat, Kasdol, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Distt. Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 06/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by directing respondents to consider BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 the case of the petitioner for regularization within stipulated time. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 10.3 Cost of the petition” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working as Computer Operator in Nagar Panchayat, Kashdol since 2007. Petitioner has completed about 17 years of service as daily wages employee and according to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 has conferred his right for regularization. He submits that identical issue is considered by this Court in case of Parmeshwar Sahu Vs. State of C.G. in WPS No. 2677 of 2023 decided on 12.11.2025, therefore, he may be permitted to submit detailed representation before respondents authorities and respondents authorities be directed to take decision on the representation to be submitted by petitioner within specified time. 3. Learned State counsel submits that as petitioner is not pressing this petition on merits and only seeking permission to submit representation to be decided by the respective respondents, she is having no objection. 4. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for respective parties and looking to the nature of grievance raised and the fact that petitioner has not approached the authorities for redressal of his grievance as raised in this petition, this writ petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to submit detailed representation before 3 respondents authorities raising all the grounds as raised in this petition and in the event, petitioner submits representation, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram