High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/2532/2006dismissed

Smt.Mitlesh Thakur And ORS. v. Union Of India And ORS.

2017-10-31Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP No.2532 of 2006

1. Smt. Mitlesh Thakur, W/o Mitra Bushan Singh, Aged about 45 years, Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Amapara, District Raipur (CG)

2. Smt. Pratibha Sharma, W/o Suresh Kumar Sharma, Aged about 42 years, Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Khamtarai, Raipur (CG)

3. Smt. Kranti Chandrakar, W/o G.R. Chandrakar, Aged about 40 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. J.R. Dani Girls Higher Secondary School, Raipur (CG)

4. Smt. Pushpa Sharma W/o Paras Ram Sharma, Aged about 50 years, Assistant Teacher, Shahid Smarak Primary Girls School,Raipur (CG)

5. Anand Swaroop Gehani, S/o Dharam Das Gehani, Aged about 44 years, Assistant Teacher, Pyarelal Yadav Govt. Hindu Higher Secondary School, Raipur (CG)

6. Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Aged about 44 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Mathpara, Raipur (CG)

7. Smt. Nita Shrivas, W/o Basant Kumar Shrivas, Aged about 42 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Khamtarai, Raipur (CG)

8. Smt. Anita Shrivas, W/o Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad Shrivas, Aged about 44 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Khokhopara, Raipur (CG) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Third Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi

2. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Director, Public Instructions, Raipur (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

None present For State :

Mr.Dheeraj Wankhede, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 31/10/2017

1. When the passed over case is called out for hearing second time, none present for the petitioners. No representation is made.

2. In view of above, this Court has left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge B/-