Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2020 DAILYLAW 592 (CHH)

PRADEEP KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA

WPS/2388/2020 · 2026-03-01

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2020

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

(WPS No.2388/2020) 2026:CGHC:10858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2388 of 2020 Pradeep Kumar, S/o Omprakash, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Deori (Bangla), Post & P.S. Deori, Tahsil Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, Pin 491771. ... Petitioner versus 1. Union of India, Through the Director General (Recruitment), CISF – 13, CGO’s Complex, Lodhi Road, Head Quarter New Delhi. 2. The Sr. Commandant, CISF 4th Res. Battalion, Amravathi Post Pudur, Taluka Karaikudi, District Shivagangai (Tamil Nadu), Pin 630301. 3. The Inspector General, CISF CS Head Quarter Bhilai Unit BSP, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Dy. Inspector General, CISF CS Head Quarter Bhilai Unit BSP, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 02/03/2026 1. Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the earlier representation of the petitioner for SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.03.03 15:11:14 +0530 (WPS No.2388/2020) compassionate appointment on higher post has been rejected, but still his representation for lower post is pending consideration. 2. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India/respondents, would submit that the application of the petitioner, perhaps has already been rejected. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner may submit representation for compassionate appointment before respondents No.1 & 3 upon which they shall take decision on the representation within three months from the date of receipt of the representation, in accordance with law. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma