1 2026:CGHC:5452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11113 of 2025 1. Hemant Shrivas S/o Late Ramdayal Shrivas Aged About 57 Years R/o Avinash Atulya, B- 309, Rajendra Nagar, Ward No. Jagdalpur Distt- Baster ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Collector Jagdalpur Distt- Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4. Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur Through- Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur Distt- Bastar Chhattisgarh. 5. Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur Distt- Baster Chhattisgarh. 6. President Department Promotional Committee, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur Distt- Bastar ( C.G. ). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, Govt. Advocate with Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 and 5 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 31/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- “I.Direct the respondents to consider the representation (Annexure P/3 and P/4 and P/8) of petitioner and recommendation of respondent no.4 and 5 dated 4/9/25 (Annexure P/11). II. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, by directing the respondents and its authority to consider the case and grant promotion to the petitioner for on the post of Senior Sanitary Inspector from the date when Departmental Promotional Committee found eligible for promotion, with all consequential benefit, with all arrears. III. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed by respondent No.4 as Sanitary Inspector vide order dated 18.5.2008. However, subsequently when respondent No.4 published new post set-up, there was only post of Junior Santiary Inspector and no post in the name of Sanitary Inspector. Accordingly, designation of petitioner was changed to Junior Sanitary Inspector, however, pay-scale which is being paid to petitioner is of Sanitary Inspector. He contended that after completion of relevant period of service, now petitioner has become entitled for promotion to the post of Senior Sanitary Inspector, name of petitioner was 3 considered and recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), for promotion to the post of Senior Sanitary Inspector. However, in view of designation of petitioner i.e. Junior Sanitary Inspector, promotion order could not be passed in favour of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 and 5 submits that due to some anomaly/mistake at the time of publication of new post set-up, post of Junior Sanitary Inspector is shown in set- up in stead of Sanitary Inspector, therefore, though petitioner is eligible for promotion, respondent Corporation is finding it difficult to promote him because in the set-up there is no post of Sanitary Inspector. Considering this difficulty, respondent Corporation has written letter to respondent No.2 on 7.10.2025 for permitting respondent No.4 to remove the anomaly which crept in new post set-up by changing nomenclature of post, from Junior Sanitary Inspector to Sanitary Inspector. Respondent No.2 is competent to grant approval to change the nomenclature of post and therefore, unless approval is granted by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 and 5 are unable to consider the claim of petitioner for promotion. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that he may be granted short time to seek instruction in the matter, in particular regarding 4 letter / proposal forwarded by respondent Corporation to respondent No.2. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, in particular statement of learned counsel for respondent No.4 and 5 in terms of letter dated 7.10.2025, Annexure R4-1, that respondent Corporation itself has sent proposal requesting respondent No.2 to change the designation as appearing in the post set-up i.e. from Junior Sanitary Inspector to Sanitary Inspector, which is pending consideration before respondent No.2, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending, awaiting response of respondent-State, and ends of justice will be served if this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 & 2 to take decision on proposal/letter of respondent No.4 and 5 dated 7.10.2025. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 and 2 to take decision on the proposal/letter of respondent No.4 and 5 dated 7.10.2025 in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. 8. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-