SMT. PRATIMA SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/8603/2025
Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 16th April 2026.
CNR: CGHC010293672025
Filing Number
WPS/18154/2025
Filing Date
09-Jul-2025
Registration No
WPS/8603/2025
Registration Date
24-Jul-2025
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
REGULARIZATION OF AD-HOC EMPLOYEES ETC. ( 602 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
16-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 26-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SMT. PRATIMA SAHU
Adv. F.S.KHARE,RAM KUMAR TIWARI,RAM KUMAR TIWARI, ,NILU KUMARI SINGH,RAM KUMAR TIWARI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
-
2.Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi Narega Parishad Vikas Bhawan
-
3.Chief Executive Officer
-
4.Chief Executive Officer -
Adv. Atanu Ghosh,PRIYANKA RAI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF
The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of Smt. Pratima Sahu's writ petition seeking regularization of her contractual Lekhapal position (held since 2010) by directing her to submit a fresh representation to authorities, which must be decided within four months, applying recent Supreme Court precedents against prolonged contractual employment. The court emphasized that states, as constitutional employers, cannot indefinitely deny regularization to workers performing regular duties, and stressed adherence to fair engagement principles under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
22-Aug-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
-
28-Jul-2025
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
-
09-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. WPS/8603/2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of Smt. Pratima Sahu's writ petition seeking regularization of her contractual Lekhapal position (held since 2010) by directing her to submit a fresh representation to authorities, which must be decided within four months, applying recent Supreme Court precedents against prolonged contractual employment. The court emphasized that states, as constitutional employers, cannot indefinitely deny regularization to workers performing regular duties, and stressed adherence to fair engagement principles under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts