Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23029 (CHH)

AJAY KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/7759/2018 · 2026-06-23

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:25806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7759 of 2018  Ajay Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Ram Krishna Pandey Aged About 62 Years Presently Working As Health Officer, Municipal Council, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development , Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Municipal Council Jashpur Nagar, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General along with Ms. R. Shangeetha, Secretary, Urban Administration and Development For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.06 .2026 1. Ms. R. Shangeetha, Secretary, Urban Administration and Development, State of Chhattisgarh is present. She would contend that a direction was issued to the concerned Secretary to file its personal affidavit by 11.05.2026. She would contend that she joined the department as a Secretary on 08.05.2026, therefore, she was not in a position to file an affidavit. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.24 18:17:19 +0530 2 2. The explanation given by the Secretary appears to be fair and reasonable. Her further presence in the matter is hereby dispensed with. 3. Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate would submit that claim of the petitioner to extend age of superannuation from 62 years to of 65 years has been rejected vide order dated 19.06.2026. He would seek permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to assail said order. 4. No objection from the other side. 5. Permission granted. 6. Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant