Anil Kumar Minj & Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction towards the Respondent No.1 to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 9466 of 2019 and other connected matters, questioning the erroneous fixation of their pay and the consequential recovery. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2026, granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation before the competent authority, along with the relevant documents, raising their grievance. The competent authority was directed to consider and decide such representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, one of the petitioners namely; Vikram Singh submitted his representation. The matter was thereafter considered by the concerned authorities, however, the Respondent No.4 therein vide communication dated 14.05.2026 intimated the petitioner that he is not the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision on the said pay anomaly and sent the same to the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, State of Chhattisgarh. Consequently, the representation of the petitioner was forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, State of Chhattisgarh, being the competent authority, for consideration and appropriate decision in the matter. The grievance of the petitioner, however, still remains to be considered and decided by the competent authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner herein submits that the grievance of the petitioner still survives and, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the Principal Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department/ respondent No.1, raising his entire grievance and placing before him the earlier orders passed by this Court as well as the relevant documents. It is submitted that the order passed by this Court has also been communicated to respondent No.1 and, therefore, the said authority may be directed to consider the fresh representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

Learned State counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, in the event the petitioner submits a fresh representation before respondent No.1, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law within a period of 40 days.

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

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondent No.1, raising his grievance with regard to the fixation of pay, grade pay and consequential recovery, along with a copy of the earlier orders passed by this Court and all relevant supporting documents, within a period of two weeks from today. In case such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the same and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of the representation, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.