1 2025:CGHC:46540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9847 of 2025 Monika Payam D/o. P. Satyanarayana Aged About 50 Years Posted As Manager, Primary Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Society Ltd., Golapalli, District Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Union, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh 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, Golapalli, 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 SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.12 11:16:05 +0530 2 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. 1. From bare perusal of pleadings of the writ petition, it reveals that the petitioner is the father of employee Monika Payam. It is stated that Monika Payam, 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 Monika Payam passed by the respondent No.4 (Annexure P/5). 2. 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. 3. The objection raised by the State counsel is sustainable. 4. 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. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh