1 2026:CGHC:19610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6201 of 2022 1 - Naresh Singh S/o D.R. Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Nalakdol, Tahsil Bharatpur, Thana Janakpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Panchayat Sanchanalaya, Vikas Bhawan Ground Floor, Sector 19, North Block Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Zila Panchayat, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Koriya Chhattisgarh. 4 - Janpad Panchayat, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bharatpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri T.L. Bareth, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28.4.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “1. To direct the respondent 1 and 2 to consider the letter dated 22/7/2021 and issue a direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner within the period of 30 days. 2. To direct the respondents to pay all arrears of salary to the petitioner within the period of 30 days alongwith interest at the rate 12% per annum. 3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Nalakdol, Janpad Panchayat Bharatpur was removed from service vide order dated 3.11.2012. The petitioner preferred a revision before the State Government, which was allowed vide order dated 13.8.2019. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.3 sought guidence from respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement vide memo dated 22.7.2021 but till date, no decision has been taken. He would submit that a direction may be given to respondent No.2 to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to reinstatement. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose. He would contend that the services of the 3 petitioner have already been terminated vide order dated 3.9.2020 and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) A perusal of the letter dated 22.7.2021 would show that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.9.2020 and at the same time, has sought reinstatement and the matter is pending for consideration before respondent No.2. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this petition at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement purusant to communication dated 22.7.2021 (Annexure-P/4). The authority concerned shall decide the application/ claim preferably within a period of 120 days. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8) With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi