1 2026:CGHC:17205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7578 of 2022 1 - Surendra Singh S/o Late Ram Darash Singh, Aged About 50 Years Presently Posted As Director (Tariff), Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Cserc), Shanti Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Energy Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Cserc) Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Cserc), Vidyut Niyamak Bhavan, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagra, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Electricity Ombudsman, Vidhyut Niyamak Bhawan, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Cserc), Vidhyut Niyamak Bhawan, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For petitioners : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 4 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the clause 5 of the approval note dated 20.04.2022 and clause 3 of office order dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure P/2) and recommendation dated 08.04.2022 REKHA SINGH -2- (Annexure P/1) to the effect that it extended the benefit of official vehicle only to Secretary as being illegal and bad in law. II. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to extend the vehicle facility to petitioner for discharging his official duties on the post of Director or to provide travelling allowance in lieu of official vehicle as provided in clause 4 of order dated 21.04.2022. III. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner the transport allowance in lieu of official vehicle w.e.f. 01.09.2021 (the date the petitioner joined as Director); as provided at the clause 4 of the order dated 21.04.2022. IV. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Ms. Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is holding the post of Director (Tariff) under respondent No.2 and has joined on the said post on 01.09.2021. It is contended that since inception, the Commission provided vehicle and vehicle allowance to the Director and Secretary but subsequently, it has been withdrawn vide order dated 21.04.2022. It is also contended that while withdrawing the earlier notification, the Commission has not assigned sufficient reason. It is argued by Ms. Dangi that the Secretary and Director are discharging similar duties with similar obligation and therefore, the impugned decision is bad in law. She would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider his representation in an objective manner 3 within a stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, Mr.Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 4 would oppose submissions. He would submit that the resolution was passed by the Commission on 21.04.2022 exercising powers under Section 91(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the sub-clause (2) and (4) of Clause 22 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recruitment and Terms and conditions of service of the Officers and Employees) Regulation, 2005 and subsequently, a decision was taken to withdraw such benefit including allocation of vehicle. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Ms. Dangi, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondents No.2 and in turn, the respondent No.2 is directed to decide representation so made by the petitioner within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in an objective manner strictly in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the present petition is disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha