1 2026:CGHC:22840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4173 of 2026 1 - Kamalnarayan Madharia S/o Tekanlal Madharia Aged About 60 Years Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat- Kandarka, Janpad Panchayat Dhamda, R/o Village Chetuwa, Post- Nardha, Tahsil- Ahiwara, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director Panchayat Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 6 - Committee For Deciding The Grievance Of Panchayat Sachiv Through Its Chairman, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.05.15 18:13:33 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to expedite the proceedings of the Committee constituted by the State vide order dated 24/03/2025 with regard to the regularization/absorption of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition is only to expedite the pending process, before the Committee constituted by the Director, by which, the petitioner’s case has been sent for regularization. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner only to expedite the pending process, before the Committee constituted by the Director, by which, the petitioner’s case has been sent for regularization. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner has already been forwarded to the said Committee for consideration of regularization and despite that, no final decision has yet been taken by the competent authority. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State by objecting the prayer of the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner 3 has filed the writ petition bearing WPS No.2986/2025 before this Court and the same has been decided vide order dated 30/04/2025 with a direction to the Dy. Director to consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision within a period of fifty days and when the Dy. Director failed to pass any order on the said representation within the stipulated period, a Contemp Case bearing No.1324/2025 has been filed by the petitioner which has also been decided on 17/02/2026 on the basis of submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel further submits that the present writ petition has been filed on the same set of facts and cause of action, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the pleadings and documents. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No.2986/2025 seeking consideration of his representation. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30/04/2025 with a direction to the Dy. Director to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated period. It is further evident that the petitioner thereafter, filed Contempt Case No.1324/2025, which has also been decided on 17/02/2026 on the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Thus, the grievance raised by the petitioner already stood considered 4 by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. 7. Once the earlier writ petition had already been disposed of with a direction to the competent authority, and the petitioner had also instituted contempt proceedings before this Court, the present writ petition seeking substantially similar relief is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is not maintainable, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep