1 2026:CGHC:24617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7696 of 2018 Dr. Baluram Kosaria S/o Late G.R. Kosaria Aged About 64 Years R/o 52/2 Vivek Bhawan, Street No. 4, Shakti Vihar, Raisali, Bhilai District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Additional Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Medical And Health Office/civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District- Hospital Sukma District- Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dr. Shambhu P Kesharwani Presently Civil Surgeon, District- Hospital Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dr. Bharat Bhushan Borde Presently Chief Medical Officer, District- Hospital, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Dr. K. K. Jain Presently Civil Surgeon, District- Hospital, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dr. Devendra Nath Nag Presently Chief Medical Officer, District- Hospital, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 7 - Dr. Ramchandra Thakur Presently Civil Surgeon, District- Hospital, Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly direct the respondent no. 1 to suitably modify the impugned order dated 06/04/2018 (Annexure P/1) and bestow full consequential benefits of promotion since 06/01/2007 as being made available to the respondents no.3 to 7 who are junior to the petitioner. iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Medical Officer, was denied promotion to the post of Eye Specialist in the year 2007. He would further submit that the juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Eye Specialist vide order dated 06.01.2007. He would contend that the claim of the petitioner for promotion was considered vide order dated 06.04.2018 and, at the same time, the pay scale of the petitioner was revised. He would further contend that the petitioner was granted higher pay scale in the year 2013 and, thereafter, his pay scale was reduced. 3. He would further submit that a circular was issued by the State Government stating that Medical Officers/Specialists who are getting higher pay scale, their pay would not be revised and such Medical Officers/Specialists shall continue to receive the higher pay scale which they were receiving prior to revision of pay scale. He would place 3 reliance upon the circular dated 15.03.2018 issued by the State Government regarding higher pay scales. 4. He would argue that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2019, but till date his representation has not been considered and decided by respondent No. 1. He would further argue that respondent No. 1 may be directed to decide the representation in the light of the circular dated 15.03.2018. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner filed the present petition in the year 2018, whereas he has claimed the higher pay scale from the year 2013. Thus, the petition is barred by the principles of delay and laches. 6. He would contend that the petitioner accepted the promotion as well as the revised pay scale in the year 2018 and thereafter cannot be permitted to take a U-turn. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard. 8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition, at this juncture, is hereby disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, keeping in mind the circular issued by the State Government dated 15.03.2018, within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim