Direction to decide representation for service benefits and promotion parity within four months.

The ten petitioners, employed as Peons in various Government Higher Secondary Schools and the Office of the District Education Officer (DEO) in Raipur, filed a writ petition seeking notional seniority from 2016 and subsequent notional promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III.

They alleged that they were denied regularization and promotion granted to similarly situated employees in the districts of Gariyaband and Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara.

The petitioners had previously submitted a representation to Respondent No. 3 (DEO, Raipur) on January 29, 2024, which remained pending for approximately two years.

During the hearing, the petitioners limited their prayer, requesting permission to file a fresh representation and seeking a direction for its time-bound disposal.

1. Whether the Court should direct the administrative authorities to decide upon the petitioners' pending grievances regarding seniority and promotion within a specific timeframe.

The Court applied the principle of administrative law concerning the duty of statutory authorities to consider and decide representations within a reasonable period.

It exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure administrative accountability without delving into the substantive merits of the claim.

The Court emphasized that such decisions must be taken "in accordance with law" and "expeditiously".

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the petitioners’ claims for notional seniority or promotion.

Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse regarding the long-pending representation dated January 29, 2024.

Since the petitioners sought a limited remedy to have their grievances heard, and the State counsel expressed no objection to such a direction, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the petition at the motion stage.

The Court’s reasoning was centered on facilitating an administrative remedy rather than a judicial determination of the service dispute, thereby directing the petitioners to submit a "comprehensive representation" to the competent authority (Respondent No. 3) to trigger a formal decision-making process.

It granted the petitioners liberty to submit a fresh comprehensive representation to Respondent No. 3 (District Education Officer, Raipur).

The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider and take a decision on the said representation in accordance with the law, expeditiously, and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation.