SHIVRAM v. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDURSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
WPS/3814/2023 · 2025-08-28
Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23285 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23285 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:44092
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3814 of 2023 1 - Shivram S/o Late Shri Hariram Bopache Aged About 35 Years Constable/ G.D. B.S.P. Bhilai, R/o C.I.S.F. Line B.S.P. Bhilai District Durg (C.G.).
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Director General, Central Indurstrial Security Force Head Office Block No. 13, C.G.O. Complex Lodhiroad, New Delhi. 2 - Mahanirikshak Central Industrial Security Force, Middle Zone, Head Office
Bhilai,
District
Durg
(C.G.) 3 - Up-Mahanirikshak Central Industrial Security Force, Ekai B.S.P. Bhilai,
Head
Office
Bhilai,
District
Durg
(C.G.) 4 - Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, Ekai B.S.P. Bhilai District
Durg
(C.G.) 5 - Commandant/d.D.O. Central Industrial Security Force, Ekai S.E.C.L.
Bilaspur
District
Bilaspur
(C.G.) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT
2 6 - Pramukh Chikitsa Sewaye S.E.C.L., Head Office Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, CGC. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/08/2025
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
“10.1
यह कि उत्तरवादी मां 05
द्वारा जारी प्रश्नाधीन आदेश
परिरशिशष्ट पी-02
ो किनरस्त/
अपास्त किया जावे। 10.2
यह कि उत्तरवादीगण ो किनद"शिशत किया जावे कि वे याचि$ाता%
ो किनयमानुसार उसी पत्नी व बच्चों े ईलाज े मेचि/ल किबल ा
अकिवलंब भुगतान रने ाय%वाही शीघ्र रें। 10.3
यह कि,
अन्य अनुतोष जो माननीय न्यायालय उचि$त समझे
उत्तरवादीगण से याचि$ ो किदलाया जावें ।.”
2. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that the petition has been rendered infructuous by afflux of time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping it pending any further.
3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is unable to say to confirm the same, as the petitioner is not in contact.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, if any cause of action arose, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application.
Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Raghu Jat