1 2026:CGHC:20244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5400 of 2022 Sanjay Prasad Soni S/o Shri Ghanshyam, Prasad Soni, Aged About 45 Years Present Posting Reader At Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Registrar General The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The District And Session Judge, District And Session Court, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The CFC, District And Session Court Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 05.08.2010. He would further submit that on 03.11.2016, the services of the petitioner were transferred to District Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Court establishment Surajpur from District Court establishment Bilaspur on mutual basis. He would contend that a gradation list of District Court Surajpur was issued, wherein discrepancies were found with regard to the petitioner’s social status, date of appointment, date of superannuation, qualification, caste, and other service particulars; thus, he would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation before respondent No. 2, and in turn, the said authority may be directed to consider and decide the same within a stipulated time in accordance with the service records. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that there is no dispute with regard to the seniority. He would further submit that the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II, and the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained as, upon transfer, he has been placed at the bottom of the seniority list in accordance with the applicable rules; therefore, the petition is misconceived and may be dismissed. 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition at this juncture is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to made a representation before respondent No. 2 for correction of entries made in the gradation list prepared by respondent No. 2, particularly with regard to social status, date of appointment, and 3 other service particulars and in turn, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the said representation in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of such representation. 5. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim