1 / 2 2025:CGHC:14551-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 458 of 2021 Biharilal Sahu S/o Shri Sukenram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bhatlikala, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Joint Director, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gram Panchayat Bhatlikala Through The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhatlikala, Block Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 5 - Raja Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Niranjan Kashyap Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Bhatllikala, Block Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.28 14:23:34 +0530 2 / 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 26/03/2025 1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2021, passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5191 of 2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.5 (Raja Ram Kashyap) was allowed directing the respondent No.4 (Gram Panchayat Bhatlikala) to forthwith reinstate the writ petitioner with 30% of back wages. 2. The appellant (Biharilal Sahu) has filed the present appeal with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2021 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5191/2011 by single judge of this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.” 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submits that the appellant does not want to press the appeal, as such the same has become infructuous. 4. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the State. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ appeal stands dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved