1 2026:CGHC:25883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5002 of 2022 1 - D.K. Sahu S/o Late Komal Singh Sahu Aged About 52 Years Occupation - Animal Attendant At Veterinary Hospital Hatkonda Tahsil Durgkondal District Uttar Bastar Kanker, R/o Village Mohala, Ward No. 06, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Anand Ram Kortiya S/o Late Bhaiya Lal Kortiya Aged About 61 Years Occupation - Animal Attendant At P.V. 26 Veterinary Hospital Mayapur P.V. 26 Tah- Pakhanjur, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Ramesh Kumar Gaware S/o Late Halalu Ram Gaware Aged About 51 Years Occupation - Animal Attendant At Village Kotkurshe Veterinary Hospital Tahsil Durgkondal, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry Veterinary Services, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary) Services, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Deputy Director Directorate Of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary) Services, Kanker, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri J.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 24.6.2026 1) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation moved by the petitioners dated 24-03-2022. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and direct the respondent authorities to prepare a fresh Gradation List taking into consideration the seniority of the petitioners and after making such adjustments the petitioners be put at the appropriate places in the Gradation List looking to their seniority. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as part-time Sweepers/ Bull Attendants in the year 1990-91. Their services were regularized in the year 1997 and thereafter, they were granted the benefits attached to their posts. He would contend that the gradation list of Class-IV employees was published for the first time in the year 2005 and in the said gradation list, petitioners were placed much below their junior employees. He would submit that WP(S) No. 2891 of 2018 was filed by similarly situated employees claiming therein 3 promotion and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 9.4.2018, wherein a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider their representations within a period of 90 days. It is argued that the petitioners also submitted representations before respondent No.2 on 24.3.2022 but till date, no decision has been taken. He would contend that a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to decide the pending representations. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 5) Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh representations. Consequently, the authorities are directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law on their own merits, within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of the representations. 6) Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi