Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57790 (CHH)

C.G. INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. COR. LTD. v. GHANSHYAM VERMA and OTHERS

WPL/1410/2009 · 2025-10-29

Shri Sachin Singh Rajput

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:53144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 1410 of 2009 1. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Through Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Shastri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh … Petitioner versus 1. Ghanshyam Verma, son of Shri Krishna Kumar Verma, Village Kodar, P.O. Raja Navagoan, Tahsil Kawardha, District Presently posted as Conductor, M.P. Road Transport Corporation at Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh 2. Labour Court (Constituted by the State of Chhattisgarh under the DGIR Act, 1960), Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Personnel Grievances and Pensions, Loknayank Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003 4. State of Chhattisgarh through Principal Secretary to Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of General Administration (State Reorganisation Cell), D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. The State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of General Administration, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 6. The Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation through the Managing Director, Habib Ganj, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 7. Additional Tahsildar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh … Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.10.31 11:14:18 +0530 2 For Petitioner : None For Union of India : Miss Anmol Sharma, Central Government Counsel For State of Chhattisgarh : Shri Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. No one appears for the petitioner despite repeated calls. 2. Miss Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel and Shri Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer appear for the respective parties. 3. In the circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal