1 CGHC010259222026 2026:CGHC:29047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5222 of 2026 Chudamani Sahu Son Of Late Sagar Lal Sahu Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Village Hasaud, Police Station Hasaud, District Sakti (C.G.) . Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Engery Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Atal Bihari Vajpayee Thermal Power Station Marwa District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer (Atal Bihari Vajpayee Thermal Power Station) Marwa - District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate For Resp No. 1 : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA For Resp. No. 2 to 4. : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 10/07/2026 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.13 10:46:43 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the continuation of suspension order dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.4 and also seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner for revocation of suspension and reinstatement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been serving in the respondent department since 26.03.2007. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 06.06.2026 in connection with Crime No.22/2026 registered at Police Station Kosir for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 39/192(1) (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, he was subsequently granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.4550/2026 vide order dated 14.05.2026. Learned counsel further submits that after being released on bail, the petitioner has submitted several representations before the respondent authorities seeking revocation of suspension and reinstatement, but the same have not been considered till date. It is further submitted that the petitioner is confining his prayer to a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representations within a stipulated period. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not oppose the limited prayer made by learned counselAS for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, without entering into 3 the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4/competent authority to consider and decide the pending representations submitted by the petitioner for revocation of suspension and reinstatement, in accordance with the applicable rules and law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul