1 / 3 CGHC010336742026 2026:CGHC:38822 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6417 of 2026 Piyush Kumar Verma S/o Shri Ravi Kumar Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 89, Sai Residency, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director Public Educatino, Directorate, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4. The District Education Officer District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Principal Swami Atmanand Government Excellent English Medium Higher Secondary School, Raghunathnagar, Block Wadrafnagar, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Satyakrishna Ojha, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Deeksha Gouraha, Dy. G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 02/09/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2025, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from his contractual appointment. The petitioner submits that the JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.03 10:52:28 +0530 2 / 3 said order is stigmatic in nature. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner, whereby his appeal has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for filing an appeal before the Commissioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to page 32 of the petition, submits that the appeal preferred by a similarly situated employee was entertained and allowed by the Commissioner, resulting in his reinstatement. It is therefore submitted that rejection of the petitioner's appeal, while entertaining the appeal of a similarly situated employee, amounts to clear discrimination. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner will be reconsidered and decided on its merits in accordance with law. He does not dispute the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja, placed at page 32 of the petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the orders placed at page 32, it appears that the Commissioner has entertained the appeal of a similarly situated employee. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner's appeal on the ground that no such appeal is maintainable, while entertaining an appeal in a similar matter, cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 24.02.2026 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. Respondent No. 3/Commissioner, Surguja is directed to 3 / 3 reconsider and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on its merits, in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti