Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11651 (CHH)

MANBODHI RAM SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/1704/2026 · 2026-02-12

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 / 3 2026:CGHC:8030 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1704 of 2026 Manbodhi Ram Sahu S/o Mahetaru Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kasdol, Rice Mill Road, Near Jagannath Petrol Pump, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director, Directorate Urban Administration And Development Department Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Joint Director, Directorate Urban Administration And Development Department Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Joint Director, Directorate Urban Administration And Development Department Durg C.G. 5 - The Collector, District Mahasamund C.G. 6 - President, Municipal Council District Mahasamund C.G. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.02.17 18:51:03 +0530 2 / 3 7 - Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council District Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate For State/Resp. No.1 to 5 : Mr. Love Sharma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 13/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay his money 1,86,717/-with interest. (One lakh Eighty six thousand, seven hundred seventeen Rupees with interest.) 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner has retired from service. However, monetary benefit like leave salary and time scale pay for which petitioner was entitled were not paid to petitioner. Petitioner filed many representations, lastly dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P-16) which are not considered and decided till date. Therefore, a direction be issued to respondent No.7 to take decision on the pending representation of petitioner at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that claim of petitioner is against respondent- Municipal Council, Mahasamund for which he is not appearing. 3 / 3 4. On due consideration of submission of learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing respondent No.7 to take decision on representation submitted by petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen