Smt. Sushila Bai Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

2026:CGHC:17414

NAFR

NIRMALA RAO

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 464 of 2022

¶7

1 - Smt. Sushila Bai Kaushik W/o Late Chaitram Kaushik Aged About 51 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Parsada, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chattisgarh

¶11

2 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commisioner, Municipal Corporation, Vikas Bhavan Raipur Road, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Smt. Sarita Anand, Assistant Grade III, O/o Municipal Commisioner, Municipal Corporation,bilaspur, Vikas Bhavan Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Shri Naveen Soni, Assistant Grade III, O/o Municipal Commisioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Vikas Bhavan Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner/s	:	Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.V. Shridhar, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Siddharth Ojha, P.L.
For Respondent No.2	:	Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3	:	Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Judgment On Board

¶18

16.4.2026

¶19

2

¶20

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) in respect of the Private Respondents.

¶23

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Official Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III.

¶24

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Official Respondents to bear the cost of instant petition.

¶25

10.5 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may be given.”

¶26

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the private respondents who were working on the post of Peons alongwith the petitioner were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector vide order dated 2.11.2021. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner has been considered for promotion with effect from 31.7.2023. It is also argued that the petitioner is entitled for all benefits with effect from 2.11.2021 when her juniors were promoted to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. He would contend that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the

¶27

3

¶28

said authority may be directed to decide it expeditiously in an objective manner.

¶29

3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed as she has been promoted to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector with effect from 31.7.2023 and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file.

¶31

5) Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No.2 within a period of 45 days from today and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide upon the representation within a further period of 90 days.

¶32

6) With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶34

Nimmi

Smt. Sushila Bai Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushila Bai Kaushik 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

Kailashram Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary

Dhirendra Kumar Dhirhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Badri Prasad Rathore Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Nova Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mahamantri Audyogik Kshetra Majdoor Sangh

Hemant Kumar Belchandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Rashmi Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh