1 2026:CGHC:4086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 786 of 2026 1. Mohd. Naeem Ansari S/o Shri Abdul Sattar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sirsi, Gram Panchayat Sirsi, Janpad Panchayat - Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 23/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/direction/order commanding the SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 respondents to quash the impugned order dated 18- 09-2025 (Annexure P—01) issued by the Respondent No.4 and order dated 29-08-2025 (Annexure P-02) issued by the Respondent no.03. 10.2 Any other relief (s), which may deems fit, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, may be given to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Rozgar Sahayak in Village Panchayat Sirsi in the year 2018 i.e. on 15.1.2018, and thereafter he worked continuously with honesty and dedication. According to information gathered by petitioner, based on some complaint, petitioner has been removed from service vide order dated 18.9.2025, which is arbitrary. She submits that the order impugned is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing or without issuing notice to petitioner. Immediately after passing of order impugned, petitioner submitted representation before respondent No.2 on 22.9.2025, however, till date representation submitted by petitioner is not considered, therefore, a direction be issued to respondent No.2 to take decision on the pending representation of petitioner at the earliest. 3. Learned State Counsel would submit that as the petitioner is not pressing this petition on merits and only praying for a direction to respondent No.2 to take decision on his pending 3 representation, he is having no objection in grant of such relief. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. Considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised in this writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the claim of petitioner, writ petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent No.2 to take decision on pending representation of petitioner dated 22.9.2025 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order 6. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-