Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47029 (CHH)

KALARAM SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/648/2020 · 2025-11-26

Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:57678 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 648 of 2020 Kalaram Sahu S/o. Late Babu Lal Sahu, Aged About 72 Years Retired Forest Guard, R/o Village Nagoi, Post Tenganmad, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Conservator Of Forest, Bilaspur, Forest Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Forest Officer, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. None for the petitioner even when the case is called in the second round. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.11.27 15:19:22 +0530 2 2. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that though petitioner sought prayer to stop recovery from the pension, however, there is no improper recovery by the Authorities and when the amount which is already paid to the petitioner on his own request by way of commutation will be adjusted in installments, the pension would itself be revived as per rules. Hence, this petition is misconceived. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid submission and considering that no representation is made on behalf of the petitioner to pursue the matter, this Court is left with no option except to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay