LATIF KUMAR NIRALA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/3874/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010168262026

Filing Number

WPS/9724/2026

Filing Date

24-Apr-2026

Registration No

WPS/3874/2026

Registration Date

01-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES ( 630 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LATIF KUMAR NIRALA

    Adv. SUNIL SAHU,SUMIT SHRIVASTAVA,SUMIT SHRIVASTAVA, ,SAHIL SAHU,RAJENDRA PATEL,SUMIT SHRIVASTAVA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Collector

  3. 3.Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)

  4. 4.Tahsildar

  5. 5.Shri Tekendra Nuruti (The Then Tahsildar Sheorinarayan)

  6. 6.Shri Pankaj Kumar Khutle

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of petitioner Latif Kumar Nirala's writ petition challenging work distribution orders that assigned Reader duties to a Class-IV employee (Process Server) instead of a Class-III or higher-ranked employee. The court found the assignment improper, noting that Reader work requires minimum Class-III qualification, and Class-III employees were available in the office. The court directed the Collector to decide the petitioner's pending representation within ten days according to law, without quashing the impugned orders at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

  4. 24-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/3874/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of petitioner Latif Kumar Nirala's writ petition challenging work distribution orders that assigned Reader duties to a Class-IV employee (Process Server) instead of a Class-III or higher-ranked employee. The court found the assignment improper, noting that Reader work requires minimum Class-III qualification, and Class-III employees were available in the office. The court directed the Collector to decide the petitioner's pending representation within ten days according to law, without quashing the impugned orders at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case