1 2026:CGHC:18923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4921 of 2022 1 - Anil Ayodhya Prasad S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Aged About 62 Years Retired Chief Hospital Superintendent District Hospital Ambikapur District Surguja, R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Health Services Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Amandeep Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.04.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call all the records regarding to petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to confirm the Ad-hoc-promotion of the petitioner which is pending since 31.01.2011. and further the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the Senior Category pay scale for expert service group of 37400-67000 grade pay 8700 since 01.01.2013 with consequential benefits. 10.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case, may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Cast of the petition may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, while serving as a Medical Officer, was promoted to the post of Medicine Specialist (Grade-I) in the pay-scale of Rs.15,600 – 39,100 with a grade pay of Rs.6,600/- vide order dated 31.1.2011, issued by respondent No.1 but till date, the benefits of pay-scale attached to the post have not been extended by the respondent authorities. She would submit that a representation was made to respondent No.2 on 25.1.2022 but till date, it has not been decided. She would submit that a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation dated 25.1.2022 within the stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard. 3 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, this petition at this juncture is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 25.1.2022 in an objective manner, preferably, within a period of 90 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