1 CGHC010381432019 2026:CGHC:35670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9311 of 2019 1 - Smt. Neetu Neeraj Pardhi W/o Shri Neeraj Pardhi Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer (Nagri Nikay) At Government Girls Higher Secondary School Vidyanagar, Kirandul, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh R/o Q.No. 73, Navjivan Society, Pachpedi Naka Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Dantewada, District South Bastar 2 Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Kirandul District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apurva Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4/State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, P.L. SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Laxmi Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh1. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has objection. 3. In the matter of Smt. Laxmi Sahu (supra), this Court has held in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as under :- “6. Given the aforesaid facts and judgments decided by this Court no strong reasons have been made out by the department as to why the services rendered by the petitioner in the Panchayat Department would not be acceptable for the purpose of counting his total length of service so far as the claim for absorption is concerned. Once whenthe department has already accepted the past services for the purpose of revised pay scale there does not seem to be any good reason for not applying the same analogy for determining the issue of absorption. 1 WPS No. 5980 of 2019 decided on 08/08/2019 3 7. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, let petitioner's case be scrutinized by the respondent No. 1 & 2 and an appropriate order be passed deciding as to why the past services of the petitioner cannot be counted for the purpose of absorption, when the department itself has counted the said period for the purpose of grant of revised pay scale. 8. Let appropriate order be passed by the respondent No. 1 & 2 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order after thorough verification of the individual details of the petitioner. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondent No. 1 & 2 so far as order passed by this Court is concerned. The petitioner would also be at liberty to file fresh representation if he so wants.” 4. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of in light of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in Smt. Laxmi Sahu (supra) and respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and decide it by passing an appropriate order within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 5. A copy of this order be sent to respondents No. 1 and 2 for compliance and needful. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet