1 2025:CGHC:46535 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9832 of 2025 Dipak Kumar Gupta S/o P. Raman Gupta, Aged About 31 Years R/o P. Raman Gupta, 132 Patanam Para District Sukma (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of C.G. Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2. Managing Director, C.G. State Minor Forest Produce (Trading And Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3. Managing Director, District Forest Produce Cooperative Union Limited, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 4. Authorized Officer, Primary Forest Produce Cooperative Society Limited, Jagargunda, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kulesh Sahu, PL For Respondent No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file duly constituted petition. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.12 11:16:05 +0530 2 2. From bare perusal of pleadings of the writ petition, it reveals that the petitioner is the brother of employee Dipak Kumar Gupta. It is stated that Dipak Kumar Gupta, is presently in jail for commission of offence under Sections 409 and 120 B of the IPC. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the termination order of Ravi Kumar Gupta passed by the respondent No.4 (Annexure P/5). 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 father 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 father 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 Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh