Smt. Shahjahan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Shahjahan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

1

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.28 11:24:25 +0530

2026:CGHC:19090

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6232 of 2021

Smt. Shahjahan W/o Shri Bhaskar Chatarjee, Aged About 36 Years Occupation Aangan Badi Sahayaika Caste Mothin Jalaha, Ward No. 15, North Jhagrakhand, P.S. Jhagrakhand, District Korea Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Woman And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

The Collector, Korea District Korea Chhattisgarh

Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh

The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Jhagrakhand, District Korea (Chhattisgarh)

5. The Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project Manendgarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Shital Soni, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

25.04.2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner and grant promotion on the post of Aangan Badi Worker to her on the basis of granting promotion to similar employee Sudha Yadav with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

2

pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give joining petitioner at original place of posting at Nagar Panchayat Jhagrakhand, Ward no. 3 District Korea Chhattisgarh (in place of late Radha Chaudhary), in the interest of justice.

10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. ”

Mr C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganbadi Sahayika at Nagar Panchayat Jhagrakhand, Ward No. 3, District Korea vide order dated 30.08.2008. He would contend that services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 18.06.2012, and thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the SubDivisional Officer, Manendragarh, District Korea, which was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2015. It is contended that an appeal preferred by Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Jhagrakhand before the respondent No. 2 was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2015.

Mr. Rao would submit that the services of the petitioner were reinstated vide order dated 04.05.2016 and she was posted at alternative place i.e. Ward No. 13, Nagar Panchayat Jhagrakhand to the post of Anganbadi Sahayika, as post of Anganbadi Sahayika at Ward No. 3 was not lying vacant at that point of time. He would submit that according to the guidelines/policy for recruitment of Anganbadi Karyakarta 25% posts are reserved for Anganbadi Sahayikas for promotion to the said post. He would contend that the petitioner has already completed qualifying service of 10 years for promotion to the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta, but till date her claim has not been considered. He would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before the respondent No. 4, and in turn,

3

the said authority may be directed to consider such representation, strictly in accordance with law within stipulated time.

On the other hand, Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has no right to claim promotion on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta. He would submit that the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jhagrakhand is the contesting respondent and decision has to be taken by said authority.

Ms. Shital Soni, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit that Anganbadi Sahayikas, who have worked for more than 10 years, their claim of promotion would be considered according to their seniority. She would contend that as petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as Anganbadi Sahayika, she is not eligible for promotion. She would submit that petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 4 raising her grievances, and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide such representation strictly in accordance with the applicable guidelines/policy, preferably within a period of 90 days from date of submission of such representation.

With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of .

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

$iddhant