Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10947
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 3410 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akash Pandey
For the Respondents: Hariom Rai
The Court directed the respondent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representation regarding seniority and the application of the Catch-up rule within eight weeks.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority - Catch-up Rule - Challenge to the grant of consequential seniority to a junior official and the non-application of the Catch-up rule in the gradation list of Deputy Rangers. (Para 1)
(B) Administrative Law - Representation - When a representation regarding seniority is pending before the authority, the court may direct the authority to decide the same within a specified timeframe. (Para 2, 5)
Issues: Whether the respondent authority should be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners regarding their seniority based on the Catch-up rule.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge seniority fixation and seek a decision on their pending representation based on the catch-up rule. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the court directs the respondent authority to decide the pending representation within a fixed period. (Para 4 , 5) |
Order on Board
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:
10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records as it relates to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/direction to declare action of the respondent authorities by providing consequential seniority to respondent no. 3 and not following Catch-up rule is illegal and to place respondent no. 3 below petitioners in the gradation list in the interest of justice.
10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may pass appropriate Writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to consider the seniority of the petitioner on the basis of Catch-up Ruls and to place them at their appropriate seniority in the gradation list of deputy Ranger above respondent no. 3 in the interest of justice.
10.4 That, this Hoon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs of the petitioner.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground raised in this writ petition is covered with the decision of Abhay Kumar Pandey and Others Vs. State of C.G. and Others passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 5710 of 2021. He submits that earlier with the wrong fixation of the seniority, petitioner has submitted representation before respondent no. 2 which is pending consideration and therefore direction be issued to respondent no. 2 to consider representation of the petitioner at the earliest within a specified time period.
3. Counsel for the State submits that in view of the limited prayer of the counsel for the petitioner, he is having no objection.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. On due consideration of submission of the counsel for the parties, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing the respondent no. 2 to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner within a further period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
