High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/3311/2012dismissed

S.N.Shrivastava And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2021-06-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3060 of 2012 Dayashankar Parganiha S/o Shri Shobharam Parganiha, Aged about 52 years, R/o Vivekanand Marg, In front of Narayan Niwas, Moti Para, Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Development Commissioner, O/o The Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Under the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Shri V.K.

Jain, Superintendent Engineer, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Vikas Bhawan Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents WPS No. 3311 of 2012

1. S.N. Shrivastava S/o Shri R.N. Shrivastava, Aged about 52 years, R/o Block F, Plot No.3, Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2. Shaukilal Patel S/o Late Garjan Patel, Aged about 52 years, R/o Block 5, Flat No. 403, Ashoka Ratna, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Development Commissioner, O/o The Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Under the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Shri V.K.

Jain, Superintendent Engineer, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Vikas Bhawan Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents For Petitioners :- None For Respondent No. 4 :- Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For State :- Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board (Through Video Conferencing) 30/06/2021

1. The matter was called up twice for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and it appears that petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the appeal further.

2. Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, would submit that both the petitions have become infructuous as these were filed seeking quashment

of seniority list and the petitioners have already retired from service.

3. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed having become infructuous.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet