Disposed¶8

Ajeet Singh Kshatriya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2026WPS/5332/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ajeet Singh Kshatriya v. State of Chhattisgarh; WPS No. 5332 of 2022; Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; decided 16.07.2026; service law; promotion; Revenue Sub-Inspector; Assistant Revenue Inspector; Municipal Council Mungeli; creation of post; revision of set-up; proposal dated 08.09.2025; State rejection order dated 06.07.2026; writ of mandamus-type direction; decision within 120 days; disposed of without merits; urban administration; Chhattisgarh.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without expressing opinion on merits, with a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to take expeditious decision pursuant to the proposal dated 08.09.2025 sent by Respondent No. 2, preferably within 120 days. ¶8

Ajeet Singh Kshatriya Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should issue to the State to sanction the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector in the set-up/cadre of Respondent No. 2 Council and promote the petitioner to that post retrospectively from the date he attained eligibility, with all attending benefits. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The petitioner, appointed as Assistant Revenue Inspector in 2003, has not been considered for promotion to date, and the Council's proposal for revision of set-up and creation of a Revenue Sub-Inspector post remains undecided.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to take expeditious decision pursuant to the proposal dated 08.09.2025 sent by Respondent No. 2.

¶7

Key takeaways

It is expected that the appropriate authority will take an appropriate decision on the proposal dated 08.09.2025 preferably within a period of 120 days.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service matter (WPS No. 5332 of 2022, High Court of Chhattisgarh, decided 16.07.2026): Petitioner, working as Assistant Revenue Inspector under Municipal Council, Mungeli since 03.10.2003, sought sanction of a Revenue Sub-Inspector post in the Council's cadre and retrospective promotion from the date of eligibility. The State had rejected his promotion claim vide order dated 06.07.2026, while the Council's proposal dated 08.09.2025 for revision of the entire set-up and creation of a Revenue Sub-Inspector post lay undecided before the State authorities. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., without expressing any opinion on merits, disposed of the petition directing Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 (State Secretary, Urban Administration & Development, and Directorate of Urban Administration & Development) to take an expeditious decision on the proposal dated 08.09.2025, preferably within 120 days. No statute or precedent was cited.

CGHC010256702022

2026:CGHC:30280

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 5332 of 2022

¶7

1 - Ajeet Singh Kshatriya S/o Late Manohar Singh Kshatriya Aged About 41 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-D, Fourth Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Municipal Council Through Chief Municipal Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Through Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- D, Fourth Floor, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Municipal Council Through Chief Municipal Officer, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For respective respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G., Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate and Mr. Anant Singh Chandel, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Adv.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

16.07.2026

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :

¶20

“a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent State to sanction the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector in the

¶21

-2-

¶22

set-up/cadre of Respondent No. 2/Council and, consequently, direct the Respondent State/Council to promote Petitioner to the said post with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of his attaining eligibility for promotion to the concerned post along with all attending benefits, financial or otherwise; and

¶23

b. This Hon'ble Court may also, be pleased to pass any other order in favor of the Petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.”

¶24

Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector under respondent No.2 on 03.10.2003. He would further submit that the petitioner has completed more than 23 years of service but till date, his name has not been considered for promotion on account of non-availability of the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector. Without addressing the merits of the case, Mr. Singh would contend that the Municipal Council, Mungeli has submitted a proposal for revision of entire set-up and to create post of Revenue Sub-Inspector vide letter dated 08.09.2025. He would contend that till date, no decision has been taken by Respondent No.1, therefore, a direction may be issued to take expeditious decision on the said proposal.

¶25

On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner with regard to promotion to the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector has already been rejected by the State vide order dated 06.07.2026 and thus, this petition has become infructuous.

¶26

¶27

Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would support the contentions made by Mr. Pandey.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Apparently, the petitioner has not been considered for promotion yet, though he was appointed in the year 2003 to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. The petitioner has placed on record a proposal sent by the Municipal Council, Mungeli, to the Joint Director, proposing revision of the entire set-up and creation of a post of Revenue Sub-Inspector but till date, no decision has been taken thereon.

¶30

Having considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Singh, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.1 & 3 to take expeditious decision pursuant to proposal dated 08.09.2025 sent by respondents No.2. It is expected that appropriate decision shall be taken by said authority preferably within a period of 120 days.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of .

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

Rekha

Ajeet Singh Kshatriya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Singh Kshatriya 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

Suresh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P.C. Ratre Vs High Court of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Baghel Vs State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh

R.S. Rathore Vs Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

Meenakshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Salasar Tradeco Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Commercial Tax GST