1 2025:CGHC:46125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9361 of 2025 1 - Mohammad Saleem Javed S/o Mohammad Mastan Aged About 47 Years R/o Mohammad Mastan Near Tahsil Office Konta District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director C.G. State Minor Forest Produce (Trading And Development) Cooperative Federation Limited, Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director District Forest Produce Cooperative Union Limited, Sukma, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 - Authorized Officer Primary Forest Produce Cooperative Society Limited, Konta, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.11 11:44:06 +0530 2 10/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file duly constituted petition. 2. From bare perusal of pleadings of the writ petition, it reveals that the petitioner is the brother of employee Mohd. Shareef. It is stated that Mohd. Shareef is presently in jail for commission of offence under Section 409 of the IPC. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the termination order of Mohd. Shareef passed by the respondent No.4 (Annexure P/4). 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has raised objection and would submit that the employee concerned should have individually come to the zone of this Court for redressal of his grievances, instead of raising his grievance through his brother or any other person. 4. The objection raised by the State counsel is sustainable. 5. Accordingly, it is held that the petition is not maintainable, as the same is filed by the brother of employee concerned. However, liberty is granted to the employee that he can take recourse available to him after releasing from the jail. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge ved