Disposed¶28

Sylvester Minj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2026WPS/4417/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — WPS No. 4417 of 2026 (Bibhu Datta Guru, J., 15/06/2026): promotion orders of two Superintendent Engineers (Water Resources Department) to the post of Chief Engineer withheld owing to pendency of the writ petition, as admitted in the State's reply; petition disposed of with direction to respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 15 days of receipt of copy of the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶28

Sylvester Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the State can withhold issuance of the petitioners' promotion orders (to the post of Chief Engineer) on account of the pendency of the present writ petition.

¶21

Court's answer

From perusal of the reply submitted by the State, the Court found that because of the pendency of the present writ petition, the orders of promotion in favour of the petitioners were not being issued, and the State had come with a clear stand to that effect.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPS No. 4417 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Order on Board dated 15/06/2026, Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge). Two Superintendent Engineers of the Water Resources Department, Chhattisgarh, filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 15/05/2026 (Annexure P/1). Referring to para 14 of the State's reply, counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to the pendency of the present writ petition the State was not issuing the order of promotion, though the petitioner was entitled to promotion to the post of Chief Engineer; learned counsel for the State supported that submission. By its reply, the State took the stand that since a final decision was awaited in Writ Petition (S) No. 4417/2026, the promotion orders of the petitioners could be issued only after the final order passed by the Court. Finding from the reply that the promotion orders in favour of the petitioners were not being issued because of the pendency of the present writ petition, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2026:CGHC:23744

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 4417 of 2026

¶6

1 - Sylvester Minj S/o Patras Minj Aged About 60 Years Working As Superintendent Engineer, Office Of The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Water Resources Department, Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Suman Kumar Minz S/o Patras Minz Aged About 60 Years Working As Superintendent Engineer, Shyam Bernai Project Division Ambikapur, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

AMARDEEP 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Water Resources CHOUBEY

¶11

Digitally signed byAMARDEEP Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, CHOUBEY Date: 2026.06.16 10:37:52 +0530 District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Shankar Thakur Engineer- In- Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Maxi Kujur Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy.G.A.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

15/06/2026

By the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 15/05/2026 Annexure P/1.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring para 14 of the reply filed by the State, submits that due to the pendency of the present writ petition, the State is not issuing the order of promotion though the petitioner is entitled for the promotion to the post of Chief Engineer.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State by referring the para 14 of the reply, supported the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents.

¶24

Para-14 of the reply filed by the State reads as under:-

¶25

“ It is humbly submitted that, since a final decision is awaited in Writ Petition (S) No. 4417/2026 in the Hon'ble Court, the promotion orders of the present petitioners can be issued only after the final order passed by the Hon'ble Court in the matter. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality on the part of the Answering Respondents and the instant writ petition as against the Answering Respondents deserves to be dismissed. ”

¶26

¶27

From perusal of the reply submitted by the State, it appears that because of the pendency of the present writ petition, the order of promotion in favour of the petitioners are not being issued. The respondents/State has come with a clear stand by enumerating the same.

¶28

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and having perused the reply filed by the State, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶29

SD/-

¶30

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶31

Judge

¶32

Amardeep

Sylvester Minj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sylvester Minj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neha Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akash Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anish Kumar Pondi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rameshwar Bhandarkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khileshwari Khare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Vidani Vs State of Chhattisgarh