1 / 2 2026:CGHC:2960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 511 of 2026 • Rajendra Prasad Vaishnav S/o Chandrika Prasad Vaishnav Aged About 63 Years Retired Lecturer, Govt. High School Tarda, District Korba (C.G.), R/o Village Urga, Post Kudurmal, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 19/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of promotion to the petitioner for the post of Principal and other consequential benefits. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while holding the post of Lecturer was promoted vide order dated 30.04.2025 along with other lecturers on the post of Headmaster of Govt. Middle School. He contended that the order of promotion was put to challenge in a writ petition where the PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 petitioners succeeded in getting interim order and thereafter petitioner was not permitted to joint on the promotional post. In the meanwhile, petitioner stood retire from service. Respondents authorities have not calculated retiral dues according to the promotional post, for which petitioner has already submitted representation before Respondent No. 1 on 28.10.2025, which is pending consideration. He submits that as the representation of petitioner is still pending before the appropriate authority, direction be issued to Respondent No. 1 to take decision on the representation at the earliest within specified time frame. 3. Learned State counsel submits that as the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and only seeking direction to Respondent No. 1 to take decision on the representation, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. 4. On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of grievance raised and further that petitioner has already submitted representation before Respondent no. 1 for redressal of his grievance, 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 is directing Respondent No. 1 to take decision on the pending representation of petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 02 months from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court. 5. Petitioner will be at liberty to submit fresh representation before the appropriate authority, if he so desires and if petitioner submits fresh representation along with copy of order passed by this Court, Respondent No. 1 shall also consider and take decision on the same in terms of observation made above. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE