1 2026:CGHC:3532 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 691 of 2026 1 - Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Jageshawar Prasad Gupta Aged About 55 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, R/o Near Ganesh Mandir, Patel Ward No. 15, Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Land Records, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Sibasish Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/State No.1 to 4 : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filled this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to count the past service of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment i.e. from 13.06.1990 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar along with all other consequential BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 service benefits and further to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion on the post of Naib Tehsildar from Revenue Inspector w.e.f. 10.05.2022 by which the similarly situated persons were given promotion. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass such further orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed as Tracer in the year 1990, however during service, petitioner was terminated from service. Order of termination of petitioner was put to challenge before the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in O.A. No.1120 of 1992, which was allowed, order of termination was set-aside. In the order passed by the SAT there is specific direction that applicant therein/petitioner to be entitled for all consequential benefits. Respondents thereafter had initiated proceedings of promotion in which Tracer appointed in the year 1990 was considered for their promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector to Naib Tahsildar, however, name of petitioner was excluded. Aggrieved with which, petitioner has submitted representation before respondent No.1 on 29.08.2025, however, till date the same is pending consideration, therefore, direction be issued to respondent No.1 to take decision on the pending representation at the earliest within specified time. 3. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner, he is having no objection. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Claim of petitioner is that persons who was appointed along with petitioner in the year 1990, are being considered for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar, however, name of petitioner was excluded against which representation has already been filed. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to consider and take decision on the pending representation submitted by petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within further period of three months from the date of receipt of order. It is ordered accordingly. 7. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram