1 (WPS No. 6273 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:19365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6273 of 2016 1 - Vikram Singh Thakur S/o Sangram Singh Thakur, Aged About 42 Years Posted At Primary School, Piplakachar, Block Khairagarh, R/o Ward No. 5, Thakurpara, Khairagarh, P. S. Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Kaushal Kumar Shrivastava, S/o G. L. Shrivastava, Aged About 46 Years Posted At Primary School, Thathar, Block- Chhuikhadan, R/o Village- Gokana, Post And P. S. Gandai, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumar Lal Chandel, S/o Ramji Chandel, Aged About 40 Years Posted At Primary School, Lanjhiyatola, Block- Chhuikhadan, R/o Village- Khudmudi, Post- Khudmudi, P. S. Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dilip Kumar Verma, S/o Mani Ram Verma, Aged About 45 Years Posted At Primary School, Khaira, Block- Rajnandgaon, R/o Village- Masul, Post- Patewa, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chhuikhadan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.05.01 10:42:11 +0530 2 (WPS No. 6273 of 2016) 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- None in two rounds. For Respondent-State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, GA For Respondent :- None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 29.04.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner in two rounds. 2. Since there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the instant writ petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!