Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48178 (CHH)

JITENDRA SINGH TOMAR, v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/2815/2023 · 2025-11-05

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:54198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2815 of 2023 Jitendra Singh Tomar, S/o Abhay Raj Singh Tomar, Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Primary School Aamtibhata, Block Durg, District Durg Chhattigarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat, Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Office, Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer,- Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For Respondents No. 1 and 4. : Mr. Devensh G. Kela, P.L. For respondents No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Ayaz Naved, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. The petition has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide salary for the period 20.05.2016 to 12.07.2018. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.06 19:30:20 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 jointly submit that instant petition has become infructuous as the petitioner was claiming salary for the period during which he was under suspension. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the grievance of the petitioner now stands redressed, as the salary for the suspension period has already been released in his favour. Relevant documents in this regard have also been annexed with the petition. 3. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh