1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5134 of 2023 Nageshwar Shandilya Son Of Shri Sajan Singh, Aged About 41 Years Ex- Computer Operator, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Tumdibod, Village Kirgi, Post Pendry, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 3 - Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Durg Division, District- Durg (C.G.). 4 - Deputy Registrar, Societies, Rajnandgaon, District- Durg (C.G.). 5 - Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit (Registration No. 148), Through Its President/manager, Branch Office Tumdibod, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. For Respective Respondents : Mr. Pritam Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 26.08.2025 1 The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.26 18:27:37 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No.3 to make reinstatement of petitioner w.e.f. 15-12- 2022 as the respondent No.3 have also allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 15-12-2022 (Annexure P-5) within a period of 30 days. 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deema fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2 By filing this petition, the petitioner is not challenging any particular order in the present petition, but is seeking a direction to respondent No.5 to reinstate him in service. It is submitted that respondent No.3, vide order dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure P/5) passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, has already set aside the order of removal dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure P/3) as well as the subsequent order dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure P/4). However, despite the appellate order dated 15.12.2022, respondent No.5 has not taken any steps for reinstatement of the petitioner in service. The petitioner has also communicated the appellate order dated 15.12.2022 to respondent Nos.4 and 5 through his representation dated 21.12.2022, but till date no action has been taken. The petitioner is still running from pillar to post for his reinstatement in service. 3 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent No.5 for his reinstatement in service, as respondent No.3, vide order dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure P/5), had already set aside the removal order dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure P/3) as well as the subsequent order dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure P/4). The grievance of the petitioner was that despite the said appellate order, the respondents had failed to take any steps for his reinstatement, compelling him to file the instant petition. However, it is now submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the relief sought has already been rendered redundant and, by efflux of time, nothing survives for adjudication. Accordingly, the instant petition has become infructuous. 4 Learned State counsel concurs the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 In light of the subsequent developments that have taken place during the pendency of the present writ petition, and having regard to the fair submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that, by efflux of time, the reliefs originally prayed for no longer survive for consideration, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending any further. The substratum of the grievance raised in the writ petition stands eclipsed on account of the subsequent events, therefore, nothing remains to be adjudicated. 4 6 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having rendered infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh