1 2026:CGHC:606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14190 of 2025 1. Tek Bahadur Kurre S/o Badri Prasad Kurre, Aged About 46 Years As Assistant District Excise Officer At Circle- Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax (Excise), Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner (Excise) Gst Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Deputy Commissioner (Excise) District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Altaf Karim Khan, Assistant District Excise Officer (Contractual) District Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Pandel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Part Prateem Sahu Order on Board 06/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash / set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent Collector, SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.01.06 18:32:27 +0530 2 Raipur. 10.2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to allow the petitioner to perform his duty at Circle Civil Line Raipur along with additional charge. 10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is holding post of Assistant District Excise Officer in Excise Department and posted at Civil Line Circle, Raipur. Petitioner was also given additional charge of other official works in the office. However, in order to accommodate respondent No.5, respondent authority concerned has changed the place of posting of petitioner, which is not permissible. He submits that respondent No.5 has already been retired and he has been given employment on contract basis. Hence, the impugned order be interdicted. 3. Learned State Counsel would submit that petitioner has straightaway filed this writ petition without submitting representation before the authority concerned against the impugned order, Annexure P-1. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of submission of learned State Counsel, this writ petition may be disposed of permitting petitioner to submit detailed 3 representation before respondent No.3 against the impugned order and in turn, respondent No.3 may be directed to decide the same expeditiously within specified time frame. 5. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents annexed with writ petition. 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for respective parties, without entering into merits of claim of petitioner, writ petition is disposed of at this stage permitting the petitioner to submit detailed representation before respondent No.3 against the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, Annexure P-1, raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition. If such a representation is submitted by petitioner, respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt. 7. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-