1 2026:CGHC:13983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7037 of 2021 * - Deowrat Dewangan S/o Late Shri Mahavir Dewangan Aged About 59 Years Presently Working As Office Superintendent , Municipal Corporation Risali, 86/5, Nehru East , Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development , Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Through Its Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Directorate Sthaniya Nidhi Sampariksha Sanchalnalaya, Nagriya Prashshan Evam Vikas, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Yaman Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Punau Ram Chandrakar Aged About 61 Years Assistant Account Officer, Municipal Corporation Raisali, Permanent Employee Of Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocte Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.03.30 11:28:23 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02/12/2020 (Annexure- P/1) holding that petitioner was entitled for promotion for the post of Assistant Account Officer with all consequential service benefits and direct the respondent-authorities to decide the representation dated 02/09/2021 and 17/06/2021 (ANNEXURE-P/6). 10.2 Any other relief which may deems fit may also be awarded along with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was posted on the post of Lower Division Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Bhilai since 20.12.1982 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II on 27.01.1990. She would submit that respondent No. 5 was appointed as Moharir on 22.12.1982 and was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 27.01.1990, and said order is bad in law as petitioner is senior to respondent No. 5. She would submit that a direction may be issued the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion. 3. On the hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit that the petitioner has challenged the order of promotion passed in favour of respondent No. 5 dated 27.01.1990 on the post of Lower Division Clerk. He would contend that private respondent has already got retired from service on 28.02.2022. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner is hit by delay and laches and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would support the contention made by learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 6. Taking into consideration the limited grievance raised by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondent No. 4 and in turn said authority is directed to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti