1 CGHC010234462022 2026:CGHC:34824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5463 of 2022  H.L. Hidco, S/o Shri Mantu Ram Hidco Aged About 60 Years R/o Ganpati Vihar, Durg, Chhattisgarh Currently Posted As Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax And GST Department ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492015 2. Department Of Commercial Tax And GST Department Through Principal Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 492015 3. Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST Department, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur Chhattisgarh 492015 4. Under Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax And GST Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 492015 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case. 10.2 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 21.04.2022. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.10 17:09:29 +0530 2 10.3 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to reconsider the review application dated 30.01.2019 by putting the same before a proper authority, after giving a due opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. 10.4 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleaded to issue an appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 1 to decide the review application dated 30.01.2019 in light of the multiple averments made by the Petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time in the year 2011, the petitioner was holding post of Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under the respondents. He would contend that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the petitioner for years 2011-2015 were up to the mark. He would contend that in the ACR of 2016-17 petitioner was graded with ' ’ ग . It is also contended that a representation was made before the respondent No. 1 on 30.01.2019 and same has partly been allowed by respondent No. 4, whereby his ACR has been upgraded to 'ख'. He would contend that request was made to upgrade his ACR for particular year from ' ’ ग to benchmark. He would submit that 'ख' is not a benchmark for promotion. He would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 1, and in turn, the authority concerned may be directed to decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the law. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer would oppose. He would submit that there was no prayer in the representation of the petitioner to upgrade ACR of year 2016-17 from ' ’ ग to ‘ ’ क , and therefore, the authority concerned exercised its discretion and upgraded the ACR of the 3 petitioner from ' ’ ग to ‘ख'. He would submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard. 5. Having considered limited prayer made by Mr. Abhyuday Singh, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 1 claiming therein up-gradation of his ACR for year 2016-17 and if such a representation is made, it is expected that the authority concerned shall decide it in objective manner, strictly in accordance with the law, preferably within a period of 120 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant