1 2026:CGHC:13049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3180 of 2022  Smt. Sohita Bajpayee D/o Shri S.P. Bajpayee Aged About 47 Years Working As Revenue Inspector (Nazul), Raigarh, R/o Dhimrapur, Raigarh Tah. And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.), Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Land Record, Revenue Department, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector (Land Record) Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. The Sub Divisional Officer Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. The Tahsildar Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner’s case. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased direct the Respondent authority to consider the representations of the petitioner regarding grant of promotion on the post of Nayab Tahsildar within SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.19 15:04:50 +0530 2 limited period. 10.3 Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.4 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Mr. Sinha would submit that petitioner is working on the post of Revenue Inspector. He would submit that initially petitioner was appointed to the post of Patwari in the year 1998 and she was appointed to the post of Revenue Inspector through departmental examination conducted in the year 2018. He would submit that till date her name has not been considered for promotion to the next higher post. He would contend that a representation was made by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 on 25.03.2021, but till date no decision has been taken. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner was placed under suspension, therefore, her name was not considered for promotion. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. As argued by Mr. Sinha that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Patwari in the year 1998 and Revenue Inspector in the year 2018 but till date her name has not been considered for promotion to the next higher post, therefore, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 1 within a period of 30 days, and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide it preferably within a period of 120 days strictly in accordance with the law. 3 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant