High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 09 CHH CK 3262

Arimardan Prasad Mishra & Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 21 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Krushna Ram Mohapatra, C.J · Santosh Sharma, J
CASE NUMBER
WA No. 807 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 782 words

Presently Posted As Assistant Treasury Officer At District Treasury Office

5.

Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar Assistant Accountants Officer Directorate Of Treasury Account And Pension (Audit Indrawati Bhawan Block- A First Floor Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent / Respondent No 5)

6.

Ku Kalyani Vijay Laxmi Banjare D/o Shri Taplal Banjare Aged About 42 Years Assistant Grade I Directorate Of Treasury And Accounts A Block-1st Floor Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent / Petitioner)

1.

Kailash Kumar Sahu S/o Late Rampratap Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Rajendra Prasad Ward Station Para, Railway Station Road Near Dakshin Mukhi Hanuman Mandir, Rajoot Gali , District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

2.

Nemendra Deshmukh S/o Bhojendra Deshmukh Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 701, Sundar Nagar, Dhanora, Road Borsi Ward No. 52 Durg District- Durg (C.G.)

3.

Raju Rambhad S/o Late Shivram Rambhad Aged About 56 Years R/o Tulsipur Ward No. 16, Gali No. 3, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

4.

Ashwanee Kumar Sahu S/o Samaroo Ram Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o L I G - 227, H U D C O, Amdingar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

5.

Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Dhiwar S/o Late Mannu Lal Dhiwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Musalman Para, Dhamdha, District- Durg

6.

Asima Gharde W/o Shri Anil Kumar Gharde Aged About 45 Years R/o H I G 116, Block No. 4, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

7.

Rekha Kunwar D/o Shri Lalit Kunwar Aged About 43 Years R/o C/o Satish Bhandari Anjali Vihar (Near House Of Laxman Potai) Mardapal Road Kondagaon , District- Kondagaon (C.G.)

8.

Khamhan Singh Goarya S/o Late Shri Dukaloo Ram Goarya Aged About 50 Years R/o Plot No. 92 Mannam Nagar, Dhanora, Near Mapple Town Post Hanoda, District- Durg (C.G.)

9.

Smt. Mohani Devi Kuldeep W/o Late Daman Lal Aged About 50 Years R/o Parakh Complex Rajnandgaon Road Near L I C Office Balod District-Balod (C.G.)

10.

Kumari Bindu Thakur D/o Shri Milan Singh Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o Quarter No. 2 D Street No. 16, Sector- 2 Ward No. 40 V T C Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

11.

Teme Lal Pisda S/o Late Shri Kunwar Singh Pisda Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Ganga Sagar, Para, (House Of Satyendra Vaide) Balod District- Balod (C.G.)

Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice

1.

Since all the above captioned intra Court appeals arise out of common impugned judgment dated 28.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2904/2025 and batch of writ petitions, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

Registry has pointed out certain defects. As prayed for by learned counsel for the respective parties, the defects pointed out by the Registry are dispensed with.

3.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the writ appeals arising out of the same common judgment have already been disposed of by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.08.2026 passed in WA No. 762/2026 and batch of connected writ appeals, with the following directions contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof, which reads as under:-

“8.

Accordingly, the present writ appeals are disposed of with liberty to the appellants to file appropriate review/recall petitions before the learned Single Judge seeking reconsideration of the common judgment dated 28.07.2026, particularly on the ground that they were not impleaded as parties to the writ proceeding despite being directly affected by the relief granted therein. 9. If such review/recall petitions are filed, the learned Single Judge shall consider the same in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved in the writ petitions, and all questions in that regard are left open for consideration by the learned Single Judge.”

4.

Hence, learned counsel for the parties submit that these writ appeals may also be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 19.08.2026 passed in WA No. 762/2026 and batch of connected writ appeals, granting liberty to the appellants to file an appropriate petition seeking review/recall of the order impugned herein. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants that, in some of the matters, review petitions have already been filed and are pending before the learned Single Judge.

5.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, these writ appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 19.08.2026 passed in WA No. 762/2026 and batch of connected writ appeals, with liberty to the appellants to file an appropriate petition seeking review/recall of the order impugned herein.