1 2025:CGHC:7681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1536 of 2024 1 - Surendra Kumar Kumhar S/o Krishna Kumar Kumhar Aged About 31 Years R/o Mohammad Bashir Khan Ward, Mungeli, Teh. And Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Regional Office, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Badgaiya, Dy GA For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.19 15:32:52 +0530 2 05/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Badgaiya, Dy GA for the State/respondent/s. Also heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 would submit that since the grievances raised by the petitioner has already been redressed, as the petitioner has been given appointment vide order dated 03.01.2025 and the instant petition has became infructuous. She also submits that as per her instruction, the petitioner has joined his service as such, no cause of action survives for adjudication of this petition, to which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has not given any instruction to him as such, he is unable to say anything. 3. However, looking to the fact that the order dated 03.01.2025, which has been placed before this Court, I am of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has not objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed having being infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi