1 CGHC010377722025 2026:CGHC:32436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10487 of 2025 Achheram Navarang S/o Late Shri T.R. Navarang Aged About 55 Years Additional Director Pre-Examination Training Center, Jagdalpur Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Department of Personal and Training Ministry of Personel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Under Secretary Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development Department, New Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development Department, Bhopal (M.P.) 4 - The Commissioner Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development Department New Raipur (C.G.) 5 – G.R. Sori, In Charge As Additional Director Pre-Examination Training Center, Dharampura Jagdalpur Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate along with Mr. Syed Jayed Ziya Ali, Advocate For UOI/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSG For State/Respondents No.2 & 4 : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents relating to his State allocation and seeking implementation of the final decision of the Department of Personnel and ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.29 10:41:47 +0530 2 Training, Government of India whereby his allocation was revised in favour of the State of Chhattisgarh together with consequential reliefs. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, by final order dated 14.11.2025, revised the petitioner's State allocation in favour of the State of Chhattisgarh and, thereafter, the State Government has also issued the consequential posting order dated 27.07.2026. It is, however, submitted that though the petitioner has now been posted in the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner has also sought, by way of additional grounds and additional reliefs, challenge to the subsequent communications/orders passed by the respondents and has further claimed consequential benefits, particularly salary and other service benefits for the intervening period from the date the petitioner was relieved till the date of issuance of the posting order, besides other consequential reliefs. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the principal relief sought in the writ petition already stands satisfied in view of the final order of the Department of Personnel and Training and the consequential posting order issued by the State Government. It is further submitted that the additional reliefs now sought by the petitioner relate to subsequent events and constitute an independent cause of action, which can appropriately be agitated in separate proceedings. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the principal grievance raised in the writ 3 petition regarding implementation of the petitioner's State allocation in favour of the State of Chhattisgarh no longer survives for adjudication in view of the subsequent final order passed by the Department of Personnel and Training and the consequential posting order issued by the State Government. 5. So far as the additional grounds and reliefs sought to be incorporated are concerned, the same relate to subsequent developments, including the petitioner's claim for salary and other consequential service benefits for the period commencing from the date on which he was relieved till the date of issuance of the posting order, besides challenge to the subsequent communications/orders issued by the respondents. These claims involve a distinct and independent cause of action which would require separate adjudication on their own facts and legal foundation. 6. In the opinion of this Court, such subsequent grievances cannot be conveniently adjudicated in the present writ petition, whose principal relief already stands worked out. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to avail an appropriate remedy as may be available to him under the provisions of law, if so advised. 7. Since the main relief sought in the present writ petition stands redressed, nothing further survives for consideration herein. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the liberty as stated supra. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu