Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32380 (CHH)

BALKRISHNA CHOUHAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/7273/2025 · 2025-07-16

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:33808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7273 of 2025 1 - Balkrishna Chouhan S/o Dharam Singh Chouhan Aged About 31 Years (Assistant Director (Sarve)) Town And Country Planning Area Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Present Address- Office of Joint Director Town And Country Planning, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Town And Country Planning, Indravati Bhawan Block No. 4, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate, Town And Country Planning, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Town And Country Planning, New Composite Building, Collector Premises, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Director Town And Country Planning (Sarve), Regional Office, Ambikapur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Ms. Palak Jindal, Advocate. For State : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 17.07. 202 5 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Draftsman, suspended by the respondent authorities vide order dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P/1), but till date his suspension has not been revoked; thus, he would pray that the petitioner may be permitted to make a 2 representation before the respondent authorities according to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhari Vs. Union of India through its Secretary & Another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 29, and in turn, the authorities concerned may be directed to decide the same expeditiously. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that against the petitioner, an FIR was registered, therefore, he was placed under suspension and subsequently, charge-sheet has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 4. Taking into consideration the limited grievance of the petitioner, the instant petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent authorities, and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to decide the same preferably within a period of 60 days keeping in mind the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhari (supra). Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder