1 2026:CGHC:18038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 273 of 2022 1 - Lalit Kumar Nayak, S/o Late Shri Ishwar Prasad Nayak, Aged About 63 Years Retired Assistant Grade - I Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Sariya, District Raigarh (C.G.) R/o Village And Post - Bar, Tahsil - Barmkela District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Head Office Daganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raigarh, Behind Rto Office, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief / Additional Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Ambikapur Namnakala, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintending Engineer (Oandm) Circle, Cspdcl Near Gopi Talkies, Raigarh District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintending Engineer (Oand M) Circle, Cspdcl Baikunthpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Executive Engineer (Operation And Maintenance), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Sarangarh, Bawa - Kuti, Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh NIRMALA RAO 2 8 - Executive Engineer (Operation And Maintenance), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Surajpur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. For Respondents No.2 to 8 : Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.04.2026 1. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 8 would submit that the impugned order dated 17.2.2020 whereby the penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was passed is appealable and therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 2. At the stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the Appellate Authority to decide the said appeal within a stipulated time. 3. The prayer made by counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable accordingly, this petition is dismissed on this ground alone. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to prefer a departmental appeal before the concerned authority within a period of 30 days from today and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide the same within a further period of 90 days. 4. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi