NIDHI MISHRA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/4476/2022

Status: Motion Hearing Matters. Next hearing: : -.

Motion Hearing Matters Next hearing —

CNR: CGHC010206212022

Filing Number

WPS/11287/2022

Filing Date

22-Jun-2022

Registration No

WPS/4476/2022

Registration Date

27-Jun-2022

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES ( 630 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NIDHI MISHRA

    Adv. AWADH TRIPATHI,SHUBHAM TRIPATHI,SHUBHAM TRIPATHI, ,INDIRA TRIPATHI,Vivek kumar tripathi,TREVENEE SHANKAR SAHU,TREVENEE SHANKAR SAHU

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.State of Chhattisgarh

  3. 3.Collector Bilaspur

  4. 4.Chief Executive Officer

    Adv. S.B. PANDEY,ANJANA PANDEY RAMVALLABH PANDEY Ritesh Verma

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF

    Case Summary - WPS 4476/2022 In this service termination dispute, petitioner Nidhi Mishra challenged her employment termination. The court found that respondent No.4 (Janpad Panchayat, Kota) claimed the petitioner's services were terminated in 2009 but failed to produce the termination order on record. The case was adjourned for one week to allow respondent No.4 to file the termination order before the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Jul-2022

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF

  4. 01-Jul-2022

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

  5. 22-Jun-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/4476/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary - WPS 4476/2022 In this service termination dispute, petitioner Nidhi Mishra challenged her employment termination. The court found that respondent No.4 (Janpad Panchayat, Kota) claimed the petitioner's services were terminated in 2009 but failed to produce the termination order on record. The case was adjourned for one week to allow respondent No.4 to file the termination order before the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case