1 2026:CGHC:3152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 535 of 2026 1 - Rajeev Verma S/o Jawahar Lal Verma Aged About 59 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Assistant Engineer O/o Sub-Divisional Officer, P W D (B And R) Sub Dn. Surguja, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Puran Chand Dewangan S/o Late Derha Ram Dewangan Aged About 65 Years Ret. Sub Engineer From The Office Of The Executive Engineer, P W D (B And R) Dn. Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Mantralaya, Sector 19 North Block Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department (B And R) Sub Dn. Surguja, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer P W D (B And R) Sub Dn. Champa, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Thakre, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Love Sharma, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 19/0 1/2026 2 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relates to the case of the petitioners from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give all service benefits including promotion/notional promotion to the petitioners respectively on concerned higher posts, retrospectively. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give notional promotion and revise the pension of the Petitioner No. 2 and give all consequential service benefits retrospectively. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer. While they were in service, petitioners have pursued Bachelors Degree Course with prior permission of the employer/respondents form Indira Gandhi National Open University through open distant learning mode. After successfully completing the degree course, petitioners have submitted their qualification degree with regard to the additional qualification with the authorities which was also recorded in the service books and accordingly, the gradation list was prepared by the respondents. Along with their name, their qualification is also mentioned as B.E. Degree holder. He contended that though the petitioners have completed Bachelors Degree in Engineering, however, they were not given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and other benefits. 3. He also pointed out that the Petitioner No. 1 is still working on the post of Sub-Engineer and Petitioner No. 2 stood retired from services and therefore, the Petitioner No. 2 would be entitled for notional promotion 3 and fixation of pay etc. for computing the retiral dues. He further submits that as the petitioner has not submitted any representation before the authorities for the reliefs claimed for in the writ petition, therefore, he may be permitted to submit representation, He contended that some of the other similarly situated petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing WP (S) No. 4400/2020 ‘Abhishek Meshram & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.’ which was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.01.2025 with a direction to the respondents therein to include the higher qualification of the petitioner therein from IGNOU in the service records and to grant them consequential benefits, pursuant to the inclusion of their B.Tech Degree and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for the consequential benefits. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State submits that the decision which is relied upon by the counsel for petitioner is with regard to the inclusion of higher qualification only. Petitioners’ qualification according to the pleadings made have already been entered in the service records. He submits that the gradation list enclosed along with the writ petition mentions qualification of the petitioners as ‘Graduate’ He further submits that the petitioners have not made any representation before the authorities for redressal of their grievances. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the concerned authorities and direction be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and take decision on the claim of the petitioners at the earliest. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 7. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised 4 by the petitioners, instead of keeping this writ petition pending seeking reply from the respondents, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage, permitting the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation before respondent authorities enclosing all the relevant documents and if such a representation is submitted, concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner in an objective manner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 03 months from the date of receipt of the representation. 8. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2026.01.27 17:42:56 +0530