Chhattisgarh High Court
CONT/1480/2026 of RAJ KUMAR CHATURVEDI Vs NIRAJ (I. F. S.) on 7 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1480 of 2026 1. Raj Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Shri Gowerdhan Prasad Chaturvedi Aged About 57 Years Daily Wage Employee, R/o Forest Colony, F.G.-1, Koni, P.S./p.O. Koni, Tahsil, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner
CGHC010376242026
2026:CGHC:43747
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CONT No. 1480 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Raj Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Shri Gowerdhan Prasad Chaturvedi Aged About 57 Years Daily Wage Employee, R/o Forest Colony, F.G.-1, Koni, P.S./p.O. Koni, Tahsil, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner versus
1. Niraj (I. F. S.) Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/10/2026
1. Petitioner has filed this contempt petition seeking willful disobedience of the order dated 28.4.2026 passed in WPS No.1586/2025.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after passing of the order, subject matter of contempt, petitioner has again submitted an application/representation along with copy of the order. However, the claim of petitioner has again been rejected vide order dated 25.6.2026 on the same ground on SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI
which his claim was earlier rejected by respondent vide order dated 2.7.2021 and therefore, the same is erroneous.
3. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and perused the documents available in record of contempt petition.
4. Perusal of the order, subject matter of contempt, would show that respondent has been directed to reconsider case of the petitioner for regularization of service and as per submission of the learned counsel for petitioner, the claim of petitioner has been reconsidered and decision has been taken by the respondent.
5. In the above circumstance, it is evident that compliance of the order, subject matter of contempt, has already been made and hence there is no ground to proceed. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner will at liberty to take recourse of law if, for any reason, his grievance still subsists.
Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-