1 2026:CGHC:22606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5697 of 2018 1 - Paritosh Kumar Dubey (Died) Through Lrs. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 28-02-2026) 1.1 - Smt. Hemlata Dubey Wd/o Late Paritosh Kumar Dubey Aged About 55 Years Relationship With Deceased Petitioner - Wife, R/o Ward No. 4, Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 1.2 - Shimanshu Dubey S/o Late Paritosh Kumar Dubey Aged About 29 Years Relationship With Deceased Petitioner - Son, R/o Ward No. 4, Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 1.3 - Aarchi Dubey D/o Late Paritosh Kumar Dubey Aged About 25 Years Relationship With Deceased Petitioner - Daughter, R/o Ward No. 4, Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Under Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director Directorate Health Care, Indravati Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Madhulika Singh Divisional Joint Director Health Care Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Medical Officer Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deputy Accountant General Office Of Accountant General (A And E) Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : None appeared even in two rounds For Respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5 / State For Respondent No. 6 : : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.05.14 11:35:26 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/05/2026 1. Petitioner- Paritosh Kumar Dubey has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order Annexure P/3 & P/4 dated 07.07.2018 & 04.08.2018 and respondent be restrained from recovering any amount from the salary (GPF Account) and also stop the proceeding will taking against the petitioner as per order of the respondent no. 1. 10.2 Facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 10.3 That the respondents be directed to pay the compensatory cost to the petitioner from the date applied till date. 10.4 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which the Hon’ble Court feels fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 would submit that notices were issued to the petitioner for his appearance before respondent No. 2 and subsequently, the order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner on 19.12.2018. He would contend that said order was challenged by filing WPS No. 906/2019 which is still pending consideration. He would submit that as the petitioner has challenged notices issued to him, this petition is not maintainable. 3. Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Rajkumar Gupta. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that notices were issued to the petitioner for his personal appearance before the respondent No. 2 and 3 subsequently, orders of recovery were passed on 07.07.2018 and 04.08.2018, which is subject matter of WPS No. 906/2019, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti