1 CGHC010257412026 2026:CGHC:29878 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5237 of 2026 Atul Kumar Diwakar Son Of Shri Ganpat Das Diwakar Aged About 38 Years Working As Panchayat Secretary (Now Suspended), Gram Panchayat, Heerapur, Post - Dashrangpur, P.S. And Tahsil - Pipariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner Durg Division, District- Durg (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy. G.A. For Caveator : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.16 11:09:51 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 11.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby respondent No. 2 has rejected the petitioner's application seeking stay of the suspension order dated 26.05.2026. He submits that while passing the impugned order, the appellate authority has failed to consider the specific grounds raised by the petitioner and has rejected the application in a mechanical manner without assigning cogent reasons. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and deserves to be set aside. 2. Learned State counsel opposes the submission and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of suspension is still pending consideration before the competent appellate authority. He submits that only the petitioner's application for grant of interim stay has been rejected by the impugned order dated 11.06.2026, whereas the appeal itself has not yet been decided. It is contended that since the statutory remedy is still pending and available to the petitioner, the present writ petition is premature and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 documents. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that since the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of suspension is admittedly pending consideration before the competent appellate authority, the grievance raised by the petitioner can be adequately redressed if the pending appeal itself is decided expeditiously. 5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2/competent appellate authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending statutory appeal by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal independently, uninfluenced by any observation made herein. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti