1 2025:CGHC:13720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4728 of 2018  Vijendra Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Padaman Prasad Rathore Aged About 49 Years R/o Village-Mudpar, Post- Afrid, Police Station Saragaon, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Malkharauda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21. 03.2025 1. The order passed by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat dated 16.05.2011 is appealable according to the provisions of Rule 12 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 before the appropriate authority. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.22 14:14:22 +0530 2 2. At this stage, Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to prefer duly constituted appeal before the appellate authority. He would further submit that the authority concerned may be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, therefore, I am not inclined to keep this matter pending. Consequently, this petition is disposed of. The petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. 6. If the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of 30 days, it is expected from the concerned appellate authority that the same would be decided within a further period of 120 days. 7. The issue of limitation would be considered taking lenient view, bearing in mind that the petition remained pending before this Court for a considerable period. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant