1 CGHC010117522023 2026:CGHC:38899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1703 of 2023 Y.G. Nandeshwar S/o G.D. Nandeshwar Aged About 65 Years R/o Q.No. 1030, L-1, Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur, Bilaspur Division, No. 1, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division No. 2, Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, B And R, Kota Sub- Division Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 02.09.2026 1 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the grievance raised by the petitioner has already been redressed by the concerned YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.02 17:04:24 +0530 2 authorities with regard to the payment, which has already been paid to him and, therefore, no surviving cause of action now remains for adjudication by this Court. It is further submitted that in view of the subsequent developments and the relief having already been extended to the petitioner, the present writ petition has become infructuous. 2 Learned State counsel fairly concurs with the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that nothing further survives for consideration in the present matter. 3 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions so made, this Court is of the opinion that since the grievance of the petitioner already stands redressed and no substantive issue survives for adjudication, continuation of the present proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 4 Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as having rendered infructuous. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh