1 2026:CGHC:7869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1683 of 2026 Vikas Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ramswarup Sahu Aged About 39 Years Occupation- Service (P A I W) R/o Gram Panchayat Tamdand P.S. Baikunthpur Tahsil Bhachrapodi District Koriya C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry And Live Stock Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director, Department Veterinary Services Directorate Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur C.G. 3 - The Deputy Director, Veterinary Services Baikunthpur District Koriya C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU ORDER ON BOARD 12.02.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to the respondent authorities to release the honorarium amount in the tune of Rs. 32,99,590/- from November 2016 till March 2025 along with the 18% interest p.a. with suitable direction. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 10.2 That, alternatively the command of direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to consider and decided the representation of the petitioner in an objection manner by speaking order in accordance with law and in consonance with the doctrines of natural justice with time stipulation. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as PAIW (Para Artificial Insemination Worker) on contractual basis on 16.11.2016 and since then he is working on the said post, however, from the date of his appointment till date, honorarium is not paid to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted multiple representation before respondent No. 3, however, till date no decision has been taken on the representation. Therefore, the petitioner be permitted to submit a fresh comprehensive representation and direction be issued to the respondent authority to take decision on the representation to be submitted by the petitioner, at the earliest. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has no objection to the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition. 5. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of grievance raised by the petitioner, instead of keeping the petition pending and seeking reply of the respondents, I find it appropriate to dispose this writ petition at this stage permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before Respondents No. 3 and in turn the concerned authority shall consider and decide the representation of petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 2 months from the date of receipt of representation. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh