Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23 (CHH)

MUKESH BHASKAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILASPUR

WPS/1919/2026 · 2026-02-19

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 / 2 2026:CGHC:9051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1919 of 2026 • Mukesh Bhaskar S/o Late Gokul Bhaskar Aged About 27 Years Occupation - Driver At Vehical Branch Under Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, R/o Village And Post - Saida, P.S. Sakri District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus • Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 20/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider and decide the application made by petitioner with immediate effect and within stipulated period ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to release the salary of petitioner without any deduction which is pending since July 2025. iii) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner who is an employee of the respondent-Corporation met with an accident and suffered grievous injuries over his person. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application, however, petitioner was not paid salary, aggrieved with which petitioner has PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 submitted representations before the respondent, but, no decision has been taken and therefore direction be issued to respondent to consider and take decision on the representation at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel for respondent submits that there is factual difference in the representation. However, if the representation of petitioner is still pending, it will be considered and appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with law. 4. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the parties, without observing anything on merits of case, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing respondent to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 03 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE