Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8881 (CHH)

BHARAT SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/5808/2022 · 2026-04-21

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:18337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5808 of 2022 1 - Bharat Sahu S/o Girdhari Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Dokrabhata, Tahsil - Khairagarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Water Resource, Division - Chhuikhadan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue on appropriate writ by commanding and directing the NIRMALA RAO 2 respondents authority to released the grant amount within stipulated period looking to financial condition of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner application for compassionate grant in light of para 17 of Policy dated 14.06.2013. 10.3 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the services of the petitioner’s son were terminated vide order dated 23.7.2016 on account of absence from service. He would submit that the son of the petitioner died on 23.5.2018 after termination of services, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation claimed in this petition. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 23.7.2016 (Annexure-R/1). 4. No objection from the other side. 5. Permission is granted. 6. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi