1 2026:CGHC:17986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3402 of 2026 1 - Ravishankar Chandrakar S/o Riddh Ram Chandrakar Aged About 53 Years R/o Subhash Ward No. 03 Distt Mungeli Chhattisgarh Current Address Village And P.O. Mahali Tehsil Kunda, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Prosecution Block-3, 4th Floor, Indirawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Ngar, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Directorate Of Public Prosecution, Block-3, 4th Floor, Indirawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Director Prosecution Of District Prosecution Directorate Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. G. P. Kurre, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.25 10:47:59 +0530 2 Order on Board 21/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. The, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondent Authorities. 10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate direction to the respondent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner as per Section 20 of the Act of 2016 by issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction /directions & provide him with suitable employment. 10.3. Any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner has not been paid salary from the month of June, 2021. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that according to her instructions which she has received telephonically and the information sent to her online shows that petitioner due to his illness is not performing his duties. According to her instructions application for leave is not submitted. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that according to his instructions petitioner has submitted an application for 3 grant of leave, however, copy of the same has not been enclosed along with this writ petition. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the claim of the petitioner is that petitioner could not be able to perform duties due to his disability and illness. He has submitted an application for sanction of leave, but the copy of the application is not placed in record. 6. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, instead of keeping this writ petition pending before this Court seeking reply form the respondent, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh application for leave before respondent authority and in the event, petitioner submits such an application before respondents No.3 to 5, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the application to be submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within further period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the application. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi