1 / 2 2026:CGHC:4365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 858 of 2026 • Uttam Kumar Dhirhi S/o Rupchand Dhirhi Aged About 33 Years R/o Arpa Vihar Colony, Phase 1, Mopka, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Block- D, Ground Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3. Additional Commissioner And Member Secretary Tribal Development Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector (Tribal Development) District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.D. Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 27/01/2026 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Hostel Superintendent, Grade-D. After completion of requisite period of service he became eligible for promotion. Pursuant to the order of promotion dated 26.12.2023, petitioner was promoted on the post of Hostel Superintendent, Grade-C and accordingly he was given posting. State authorities took decision to repost the promoted Hostel Superintendents Grade-C after initiating the proceedings of counseling. Petitioner also PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 participated and thereafter order of posting dated 13.01.2026 was issued posting the petitioner at Post Metric Scheduled Tribe Boys Hostel, Surajpur, Block Surajpur, District Surajpur. Aggrieved with which, petitioner has submitted a representation before Respondent No. 2/ Commissioner on 15.01.2026. He submits that as the representation submitted by petitioner raising his grievance is still pending consideration before the competent authority, direction be issued to the respondents to take decision on the pending representation at the earliest within specified time. 3. Learned State counsel does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. 4. On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of grievance raised and further considering that representation submitted by petitioner raising grievance as raised in this writ petition is still pending consideration before Respondent No. 2, without entering into merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing Respondent No. 2 to take decision on the pending representation of petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE