1 2025:CGHC:7491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3338 of 2018 1 - Dr. M.L. Vyas S/o Late Johan Lal Vyas Aged About 62 Years Working As Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari , And Posted At Government Ayuvedic Aushdhyalaya, Amadi, District Dhamtari , Resident Of Rampurward , Dhamtari , Ward 35 , Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh Health And Family Welfare Department , Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director , Ayurved Yog Avam Prakritik Chikitsa , Unani Avam Homeopathy ( Ayush ) Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Ayurvedic Adhikari , Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --Respondents For Petitioner : None for the petitioner even in the second round For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2 Order on Board 12.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents and direct to permit the petitioner to work at present place of posting in the interest of justice. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition may also be awarded to the Petitioner.” 2. It appears that the order of compulsory retirement was passed against the petitioner on 06.04.2018. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in two rounds. 4. It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter, therefore, this petition is dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha