Chhattisgarh High Court
WPS/7826/2019 of SUDARSHAN SINGH AHIR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 31 August 2026
of 2019) CGHC010301632019 2026:CGHC:38649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7826 of 2019 1 - Sudarshan Singh Ahir S/o Mr. Baijnath Ahir Aged About 46 Years By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat) Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Basanwahi, Block Narharpur, District Utter
CGHC010301632019
2026:CGHC:38649
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7826 of 2019
1 - Sudarshan Singh Ahir S/o Mr. Baijnath Ahir Aged About 46
Years By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat) Posted At Govt.
Higher Secondary School, Basanwahi, Block Narharpur, District Utter Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Sanchanalya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat , District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
For Petitioner
:- Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondent-State
:- Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer
SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 01.09.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent department has counted the previous service of the petitioner for the purpose of revised pay scale but not counting the same for the purpose of absorption in the department, for which the petitioner may be allowed to make representation before the respondent/competent authority.
3. Learned State Counsel would submit that if the petitioner makes representation with regard to counting his previous service for the purpose of absorption, it would be considered and decided within a period of six weeks.
4. Be that as it may, the petitioner is allowed to file a representation along with copy of this order and other relevant documents before the respondent department/competent authority for redressal of his grievance within three weeks from today, and, in turn, the respondent department/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the said representation of the petitioner on its own merit strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.
5. With the aforesaid direction and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge @d!t!