1 2025:CGHC:1916 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 201 of 2025 1 - Smt. Pushpa Markam W/o Manoj Kumar Markam Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Staff Nurse At District Hospital, Kanker, R/o Shriram Nagar, Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Pushpa Singhare W/o Chandraprakash Singhare Aged About 48 Years Presenlty Posted As Staff Nurse At District Hospital, Kanker, R/o Near Post Office, M.J. Ward Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Health Services Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer North Bastar Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, this petitioner has sought following relief : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners from the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court by issuing an appropriate writ, direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion on the post of Nursing Sister maintaining the seniority of the petitioners w.e.f. 13.04.2016. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at present the Gradation List has been prepared and according to which, the petitioners may be granted promotion, at this stage, they want to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file a fresh petition if any such exigency arises. 3 4. The prayer of the petitioner has not been opposed by the learned State counsel. 5. Permission is granted. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive it if cause of action subsists. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi