Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23254 (CHH)

C.P. SHRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/4718/2026 · 2026-06-23

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:25874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4718 of 2026 C.P. Shrivastava S/o C K Shrivastava Aged About 60 Years R/o 33, Vrindavan Colony Raigarh Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Chhattisgarh Urban Administration And Development Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Development Area Office Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Bilaspur Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Resp 1to 4 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. GA For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.06.25 10:28:52 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 24/06/2026 1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has already challenged the order cancelling his regularization by filing WPS No. 9055/2019, wherein this Court has granted interim protection by staying the operation of the impugned order. It is further submitted that the claim raised in the present writ petition seeking retiral benefits is intrinsically connected with the subject matter involved in the aforesaid pending writ petition. Therefore, instead of instituting a separate writ petition, the petitioner ought to have sought appropriate relief by moving an application in WPS No. 9055/2019 itself. As such, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 2. Faced with the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law. 3. Prayer is allowed. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul