1 / 3 2026:CGHC:12039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2419 of 2026 Akti Kunwar Mahant W.O Manohar Das Mahant Aged About 55 Years Chhal, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector District -Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Dharamjaigarh, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Cg) 5 - Principal Government Higher Secondry School, Kudedkela, District Raigarh (Cg) 6 - Lakeshwar Dansena Posted As Peon, At Middle School, Darri, Block- Kahrsia, District Raigarh (Cg) 7 - Murlidhar Patel Posted As Peon At Middle School, Keshla Block Lailunga, District Raigarh (Cg) 8 - Ramesh Kumar Sao Posted As Peon At Higher Secondary School, Kudekela Block- Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Srijan Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 13.03.2026 2 / 3 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant regular pay scale and monetary allowances with respect to consider his regularization from 25.02.1998. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the overdue amount (Arrears) with interest to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. An affidavit in support of is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Contract Employee on 25.02.1995 since then, petitioner remained continuously appointed and even today petitioner is working. He contended that pursuant to the circular issued by the State Government, petitioner’s service were regularized i.e. from 25.02.1995 along with 244 employees. He contended that some of the employees who were regularized along with the petitioner have filed a writ petition before this Court and pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition, their claim was reconsidered and they were granted regular pay scale after completion of three years from the date of initial appointment. One of such order is filed as Annexure-P/6 at Page No. 30. He contended that the petitioner’s case is also similar to that of Lakeshwar Dadsena and therefore, Lakeshwar Dadsena (whose name is at Serial No. 105 in the list of regularized employee [Annexure-P/5]. He submits that earlier petitioner had submitted representation, however, that was rejected on 05.05.2016. 3. It is also contended that as now the respondent authorities have also granted/extended the benefit of the regular pay scale to other similarly placed employee, immediately after completion completion of three 3 / 3 years from the date of initial employment, subsequent to the rejection of the application of the petitioner, he may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondent No. 2 to 4 and direction be issued to concerned authorities to considering to consider and taken decision on the representation submitted to be submitted by the petitioner, expeditiously, within specified time frame. 4. Counsel for State submits that the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking permission to submit representation, he is having no objection. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. On due consideration of submission of counsel for the parties, the writ petition at this stage is disposed of, permitting the petitioners to submit a fresh representation before the concerned authorities along with all supporting documents and in the event such a representation is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the same taking note of the order dated 03.02.2018 in favour of Lakeshwar Dansena and the order passed in favour of other similarly situated employees, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of representation. 7. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE