1 2025:CGHC:58734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9562 of 2023 1 - Prabhu Patle S/o Late Shri Govind Ram Patle Aged About 68 Years Retired As Deputy Director, Head Office Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Borad, Raipur, R/o Of Sai Nagar Urla Ward No. 58, Road, No. 5, Post Mohannagar, Tahsil Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board Through The Managing Director, Mahtma Gandhi Smriti Bhawan, Keyur Bhushan Parisar, Kankali Para Road, Sports Comples, Premises, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to decide the representation dated RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 15.09.2023 (Annexure P/3) of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed on the limited ground that the petitioner’s service book does not contain a specific entry regarding his date or particulars of retirement, which is essential for determining his service benefits, therefore, in the absence of such a mandatory notation, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions for ensuring that the necessary retirement-related details are duly recorded in his service book. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a subsequent order has already been issued wherein the petitioner’s date of retirement has been clearly specified as 23.02.2016, and therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner stands duly redressed, leaving no surviving cause for further adjudication. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly taking into account that the petitioner’s date of retirement has already been specifically recorded as 23.02.2016 3 by a subsequent order, it is evident that the grievance raised by the petitioner stands duly redressed. In view of this development, no further issue remains to be adjudicated, and the petition no longer survives for consideration. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being infructous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat