1 2026:CGHC:45 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14070 of 2025 1 - Smt. Namrata Rathore W/o Shailendra Kumar Rathore Aged About 33 Years Presently Posted As Peon (W/c), S E Civil Circle-Iii, 2 X 500 M W ABVT, Marwa, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G.- 495668. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chairman Chhattisgarh State Power Company Limited (C S P C L), Danganiya, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Company Limited (C S P C L), Danganiya, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Chief Engineer, Human Resource, Chhattisgarh State Power Company Limited (C S P C L), Danganiya, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Chief Engineer, Atal Vihari Bajpaee Thermal Power Station, Marwa, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. 5 - Superintendent Engineer, Human Resource (S E H R) Atal Vihari Bajpaee Thermal Power Station, Marwa, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 02/01/2026 BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on work-charged basis for a period of two years on the post of Peon vide order dated 07.10.2012, however, till date, petitioner has not been regularized on the post on which she is working. He contended that inadvertently in prayer clause, petitioner has made prayer for regularization of petitioner on the post of Office Assistant Grade-III erroneously. Petitioner is claiming relief for regularization on the post of Peon on which she was appointed. He also submits that petitioner has already submitted representation before respondent No.1, which is pending consideration since 31.12.2024 and reminder representation dated 27.07.2025, however, none of the representation submitted by petitioner is considered. 2. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that representation submitted by petitioner would be considered in accordance with law, if is still pending consideration. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 4. Claim of petitioner is for regularization. According to submission of petitioner, petitioner is still working on the post of Peon since 2012. Petitioner has submitted representation before respondent No.1, however, as stated both the representations remained unconsidered. In the aforementioned facts of the case I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting petitioner to submit fresh representation before respondents No.1 and 2 raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition and if such representation is submitted, the concerned authorities shall consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably 3 within further 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