1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 468 of 2026 1 - Anil Kumar Sori S/o Mr. Champa Lal Sori Aged About 40 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Nahagida, Block Koilibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G. --- Respondent(s) (The cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filled this petition seeking the following reliefs:- BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be please direct the respondents to absorb the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2018, with all consequential benefit by taking initial date of appointment. 10.2 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was earlier in the services of Janpad Panchayat. Pursuant to the policy decision taken by the State Government, all the teachers working in the Janpad Panchayat and completed 8 years of their service were absorbed w.e.f. from 01.07.2018, though the petitioner’s services were absorbed in the School Education Department, however, it was from 01.07.2019 and not from 01.07.2018. Petitioner thereafter has submitted representation before the respondent authorities, however, the representation submitted by petitioner has not been considered and decided. He contended that in the meantime, writ petition filed by similarly situated persons in WPS No. 2860 of 2023 was allowed vide order dated 02.12.2025, therefore, petitioner may be permitted to submit fresh representation before respondent No.4 pressing all the subsequent grounds available to him and a direction be issued to concerned respondent to consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the limited prayer made by leaned counsel for petitioner, he is having no objection. 3 4. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for parties and looking to the nature of grievance raised, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting petitioner to submit fresh representation before respondent No.4 and if such representation is submitted, concerned respondent shall consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within further period of three months from the date of receipt of representation. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram