1 CGHC010141342019 2026:CGHC:36776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3107 of 2019 Smt. Sohita Bajpayee D/o S. P. Bajpayee Aged About 42 Years R/o Dhimarapur, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Deveopment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Land Records, Atal Nagar, New Mantralay, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector, Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits likewise remaining salaries, increments etc. while considering the representation of the petitioner. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders to direct the respondent authorities to consider the promotion of Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.08.18 16:59:35 +0530 2 petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector for which she is legally entitled in accordance with law. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide annexure R/1, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Reveue Inspector, however the consequential benefits have not been considered till date, for which the petitioner has submitted a representation (Annexure P/4). However, the said representation has not yet been considered and decided. He, therefore, confines his prayer to a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the said representation, in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. 3. Learned State Counsel does not oppose the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P/4) submitted by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit an additional representation along with all relevant documents, if so advised. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti