1 2026:CGHC:18904 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 62 of 2022 1 - Dr. D.P. Mahajan S/o B.P. Mahajan Aged About 71 Years R/o Lig-1190, Housing Board, Industrial Area Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Labour Department Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Labour/ State Employees Insurance Srvice, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Tapan Chandra, Advocate holding the brief of Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Siddharth Ojha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. NIRMALA RAO 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner for grant of senior and selection grade pay scale in the light of judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 2253/2005 as considered in case of similarly placed employees. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was employed as a Doctor at the Employees State Insurance Company, Raipur and got retired from services on account of superannuation on 31.12.2008. He would contend that the petitioner made a representation for grant of senior and selection grade pay scales but till date, his representation has not been considered. He would further contend that similarly placed employee Dr. T.B. Goswami, filed WP(S) No. 2253 of 2005 before this Court and a direction was issued to the State to consider and decide the representation. He would submit that the respondent authorities may be directed to decide the pending representation strictly in accordance with law in light of the judgment passed in the aforementioned writ petition. 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 the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to 3 decide the pending representation expeditiously, preferably within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi