VINOD KUMAR RATHORE vs S.E.C.L. Advocate - PANKAJ AGRAWAL, ,A.G.,PREETI YADAV — WPS/8499/2022
Next hearing: : -.
CNR: CGHC010379022022
Filing Number
WPS/20784/2022
Filing Date
17-Nov-2022
Registration No
WPS/8499/2022
Registration Date
26-Nov-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
REMOVAL / DISMISSAL / TERMINATION FROM SERVICE. ( 603 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Last updated 22-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VINOD KUMAR RATHORE
Adv. PRABHAKAR SINGH CHANDEL,CHANDRA KUMAR,CHANDRA KUMAR, ,SEEMA SINGH,SUSHOBHIT SINGH,CHANDRA KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.S.E.C.L. Advocate - PANKAJ AGRAWAL, ,A.G.,PREETI YADAV
-
2.Chief Manager (Mines/Inquiry Officer), S.E.C.L.
-
3.Deputy General Manager (Mines)
-
4.The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora
-
5.The Tehsildar, Katghora
-
6.Kaushal Prasad Rathore
Adv. MALAY SHRIVASTAVA,SOURABH SAHU ISHA JAJODIA Somraj Shrivastava JAY SINGH
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
13-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF
Case Summary In WPS No. 8499 of 2022 (Vinod Kumar Rathore v. S.E.C.L.), the High Court of Chhattisgarh directed the Superintendent of Police, Korba to conduct a detailed inquiry into the petitioner's claims regarding land acquisition and subsequent cancellation of his appointment. The Court found insufficient documentary evidence of adoption and property mutation, and directed submission of the inquiry report within 90 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Sep-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF
-
06-Dec-2022
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF
-
30-Nov-2022
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
-
17-Nov-2022
Case filed
Registration No. WPS/8499/2022
Case Summary In WPS No. 8499 of 2022 (Vinod Kumar Rathore v. S.E.C.L.), the High Court of Chhattisgarh directed the Superintendent of Police, Korba to conduct a detailed inquiry into the petitioner's claims regarding land acquisition and subsequent cancellation of his appointment. The Court found insufficient documentary evidence of adoption and property mutation, and directed submission of the inquiry report within 90 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts