1 2026:CGHC:14349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4158 of 2022 1 - Ravi Kumar Uikey S/o Late Shri Ramanlal Uikey, Aged About 30 Years Working As Peon At The Office Of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Bhas./sa) Division Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief, Public Work Department, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Gagendra Nagvanshi, Working As Assistant Grade -3 At The Office Of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Bhas./sa) Division Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate holding the brief of Shri G.P. Mathur, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25 .03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: NIRMALA RAO 2 “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and grant promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-3 w.e.f. date of promotion order dated 09.08.2018 of the private respondent no. 3, with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III from the post of Peon. He would contend that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened and an order of promotion was issued on 9.8.2018 but the name of the petitioner was not considered whereas, a junior to the petitioner was considered and promoted to the said post. He would contend that according to Clause 8 of the promotion order, the petitioner has moved a representation before respondent No.2 on 18.4.2022 but till date, the same has not been considered and decided. He would submit that a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to take an appropriate decision on the said representation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation dated 18.4.2022 submitted 3 by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi