SOHAN SAGAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/8173/2025

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010300392025

Filing Number

WPS/18594/2025

Filing Date

14-Jul-2025

Registration No

WPS/8173/2025

Registration Date

17-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

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES ( 630 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SOHAN SAGAR

    Adv. F.S.KHARE,RAM KUMAR TIWARI,RAM KUMAR TIWARI, ,RAM KUMAR TIWARI

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.Superintendent

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Sohan Sagar, a vehicle driver, who had not received salary from June 2022 to August 2023. The court directed the Superintendent of Chhattisgarh State Garage to consider and decide on the petitioner's pending representation within three months from the date of the order, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The State did not object to the limited prayer sought by the petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

  4. 21-Jul-2025

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

  5. 14-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/8173/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Sohan Sagar, a vehicle driver, who had not received salary from June 2022 to August 2023. The court directed the Superintendent of Chhattisgarh State Garage to consider and decide on the petitioner's pending representation within three months from the date of the order, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The State did not object to the limited prayer sought by the petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case