CGHC010027482019 2026:CGHC:33079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 827 of 2019 1 - Pongram Tondon S/o Shri Maharsai Tondon Aged About 64 Years Retd. Head Master, govt. Primary School ,pakariya Block Pamgarh District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary ,school Education Depart- ment Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instructions Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Janjgir ,district Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Pamgarh District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh ., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Surendra Dewangan, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the communication/order dated 01.12.2018/08.12.2018 issued by respon- dent No.4, whereby the petitioner's claim for grant of the benefit under Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.08.01 12:05:37 +0530 Rule 22-D of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for extending such benefit. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 649 of 2011, which was dis- posed of on 03.02.2011 with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation by passing a rea- soned and speaking order. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 06.08.2018; however, no speaking order was passed thereon. Instead, upon an application made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the respondent issued the communication dated 01.12.2018/08.12.2018, stating that there is no provision for grant of the benefit under Rule 22-D of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned communication dated 01.12.2018/08.12.2018 be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of Rule 22-D of the Chhattisgarh Funda- mental Rules. 3. Learned State counsel supports the impugned communication and submits that it has been issued in accordance with the applicable rules. It is prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. It is evident that this Court, vide order dated 03.02.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 649 of 2011, had directed the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation with regard to his claim for grant of benefit under Rule 22-D of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules. However, while rejecting the petitioner's claim vide communica- tion/Annexure P/4, the competent authority has merely stated that there is no provision for grant of such benefit. The impugned communication, therefore, cannot be said to be a reasoned and speaking order. 6. Accordingly, the impugned communication/order (Annexure P/4) is set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti