Anil Kumar Pali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:12996

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 268 of 2026

¶6

1 - Anil Kumar Pali S/o Shri Babu Ram Pali Aged About 30 Years R/o Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,

¶7

2 - Umend Kumar Mahilange S/o Shri Bhagwat Mahilange Aged About 34 Years R/o Jalebi Chowk, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.,

¶8

3 - Savitri Soni D/o Shri G.R. Soni Aged About 38 Years Nandini Nagar, Durg, District Durg (Cg)

¶9

4 - Anil Kuamr Dewangan S/o Shri Mihan Lal Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Pantora, Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Chandrashekhar Sahu S/o Shri Chhabi Kumar Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Ratna Bandha, Dhamtari, District, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶11

6 - Devendra Patel S/o Shri G.D. Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o Pussore, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

7 - Banwali Ram S/o Shri Udai Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Hathigorra, Balod District Balod (Cg)

¶13

8 - Chhowa Ram Sonwani S/o Shri Sikdeo Sonwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Darripar, Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh

¶14

9 - Virendra Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Bisroo Ram Baghel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kamkapar, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶15

10 - Chanesh Ram Kurre S/o Shri Nandau Kurre Aged About 28 Years R/o VillageSukhapali, Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

11 - Rameshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Parmanand Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Tusma, Tahsil - Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶17

12 - Sheetal Kumar S/o Shri Gaind Lal Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Tilkhairi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶18

13 - Mohit Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Tuman Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o VillageKumhali, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶19

2

¶20

14 - Uttra Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Makkar Ram Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Gadapali, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh

¶21

15 - Tulesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Radheshyam Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Budhapara, Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶22

16 - Niranjan S/o Shri Basant Kumar Sen Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Jarahi, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶23

17 - Namit Kumar Sen S/o Shri Basant Kumar Sen Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Chisda, Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

18 - Shivnarayan Sahu S/o Shri Chhatturam Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Pendri, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶25

19 - Deepak Rajpoot S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o VillageKusumkunda, Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶26

20 - Ghanshyam Kumar Dhankar S/o Kartik Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Kumharpara, District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶27

21 - Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Dashrath Prasad Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Basinbahara, Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶28

22 - Sukhchand Khute S/o Shri Rajkumar Khute Aged About 35 Years R/o Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶29

23 - Bheshyogendra S/o Shri Manaram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Saraskela, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgrh

¶30

24 - Vikas Sahu S/o Shri Khilawan Prasad Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Matwari, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶31

25 - Naveen Dewangan S/o Shri Kalku Ram Aged About 38 Years R/o Jamkotpara, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶32

26 - Rashmi Sharma D/o Shri Shyamlal Sharma Aged About 27 Years R/o Sonhat, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh

¶33

27 - Rukasana Begam D/o Shri Abdul Gaffar Aged About 28 Years R/o Nailedari, Koriya, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh

¶34

28 - Tanuja Begam D/o Shri Israrul Huque Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Devgai, District-Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶35

29 - U. Chudamani Patnayak S/o Shri U. Laxminarayan Patnayak Aged About 42 Years R/o Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶36

30 - Anil Yadav S/o Shri Shivlal Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Daldali, Narharpur, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioners

versus

3

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

¶41

2 - Director Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan Block-04, Ist Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Cg)directorate Of Public Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

¶42

3 - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Empliyees Provedent Fund Organisation, Regional Office Pandri, Raipur District (CG)

¶43

		... Respondent
For Petitioners	:	Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2	:	Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Adv.
For Respondent No. 3	:	Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate.

¶44

{Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi}

¶45

Order on Board

¶46

18/03/2026

¶47

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, which is application for exemption.

¶48

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in WPS No. 1134 of 2020, counsel of petitioner of present MCC were representing the petitioners, therefore, they may be exempted from filing fresh Vakalatnama in the instant MCC.

¶49

3. Counsel for the respondents have no objection in allowing the aforesaid application.

¶50

4. On due consideration, the application (I.A. No. 1/2026) is allowed. Counsel for the petitioners is exempted from filing fresh Vakalatnam in the instant MCC.

¶51

5. Counsel for the petitioner is heard on restoration application.

¶52

6. The petitioners are seeking restoration of WPS No. 1134 of 2020, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 03.09.2025.

¶53

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when WPS No. 1134 of 2020 was fixed for hearing, on that date, petitioners’ counsel could not make contact with their counsel, therefore, aforesaid case was dismissed for want of prosecution. He further submits that non-presence of the petitioner’s counsel on 03.09.2025, when the case is called out for hearing, is bonafide and not

¶54

4

¶55

deliberately, therefore, WPS No. 1134 of 2020 may be restored to its original number.

¶56

8. Counsel for the respondents have raised objection to the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners.

¶57

9. On due consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, I am satisfied that the absence of the petitioner’s counsel on 03.09.2025 when WPS No. 1134 of 2020 was taken-up for hearing was based on bona fide grounds.

¶58

10 . Accordingly, M.C.C. No. 268/2026 is allowed and WPS No. 1134/ 2020 is restored to its original number.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶61

Judge

¶62

AMITKUMARDUBEY Digitally signedby AMITKUMAR DUBEYDate:2026.03.2311:14:05 +0530

Anil Kumar Pali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Pali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ajooba Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India

Devashish Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Smt. Ruhi Agrawal Vs Raipur Development Authority

Ramjan Ali Urf Balla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lalta Vs South Eastern Coalfield Limited

Satish Kumar Yadav Vs Sanjeev Kumar Jha