Allowed

Smt. Anjulata Bareth v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2008WPS/4860/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that the petitioner's grievance regarding non-grant of retirement dues falls squarely under prior decisions. Court disposed of petition directing the Advocate General to transfer case to the Pension Committee for consideration within four months, noting direct representation is preferable over writ.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on same terms as W.P.No.4642/2004; case forwarded to Pension Committee; completion of exercise and payment directed within four months.

Smt. Anjulata Bareth Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2008)

¶1

liGi

¶2

WriSPet!tion,!S)NQ,4860^of,20a8

¶3

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Smt. AniulataBareth, Wd/o. Late Shri Shiv Dayal Bareth, aged about 41 years, r/o. post - Muktaraja (Badaduar), Thasit Shakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa(CG).

¶6

1).	State of Chhattisgarh of Hi. E ion, DKS
2)	Director/Commissioner, Higher Education, Go'/emment Science College Premises, Raipur (CG).
3)	Edycation, Raipur (CG).
4)	Principie, Govemment Lamaneshv»'ar, Coilege, Kharaud, Distt. Janjglr-champa (CG). \|
5)	District Treasurer, Dlstt. Janjgir-Champa
S)	Accountant General, Raipur(CG).

¶7

(Writ^{PetitionunderArticles226oftheConstitutionofIndi}

¶8

Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. AgnihotriS'».F^4ap'i i

¶9

Present: 'Shri Vjnay Pandey, counse! for ths petitionsr. Shri.P.K.Bhaduri,: Panei Ms. Sharmila Sinahai, Asst. So sr Generai for the State.

¶10

j«

¶11

ORAL ' • : •.' (Passed pn^{this 2"* day'of September,2008)}

¶12

Vtfith consent' of iearned eounsei appearing for the parties, the .rnatter • is heardflnally.' . : : • :! ,

¶13

• . : : • :! , ;

¶14

1. ThisGasepertainstcygrievance^fnon-grantoi'retiraiduss.l

¶15

1. ThisCourt.in the matter of Vtf.P.No.4642/2004 (Baijnath ivlahdal Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh &,others) and other connected mattsra, .directed the Committee to coriaiderthe matter;ofretriaidues as the disputed of .facts were involved. The^Committse was constituted

¶16

Government, pursuant to Ift® ordsrdatedi. 19-06-

¶17

-2--

¶18

W.P.No.1961/2005 (Smt. Keja Bai Chandrakar Vs. State Government of Chhatiisgarh and others), and ordferdated 13-3-2008 passed in M.C.C. No. 105 of 2008 (Slate of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Baijnath Mandal and anoiher). Thus, this petition is squareiy covered by ttie judgment and order dated 31s' January, 2008 passed In W.P.No. 4642/2004 (Baijnath Mandal (supra))^{assubmittedbyiearnedcounselappearing for the} parties,

¶19

¶20

This petition is accordingly disposed of in the same terms i.e., the (3< office of the Advocate General is directed to send the cass to the Committee. withln a perlod of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as weii as a copy of the petition from ihe petitioner. Thereafter, the Committee sha!l issue notice to the petitioner and officers concerned within a further period of .15 days. The Committee shail consider and pass order, in accordance with iaw, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner and the officers concerned may fiie addttionat documents, If necessary..The entireexereise, including payment of retirai o'ues, if any,.to the petitioner, be compieted within a period of four months from the date of receipt of acopy of thls order.

¶21

The petitionsr shall supply onecomplete set of the petition to the State counsei as weii as counse) for Union ot' india for transferring the same to the eonimittee. .

¶22

in case of grievance with regard to i-payment of pensionery dues, it is not necessarv'to fi!e a writ petition before this Court directlv. The representation/application can be moved before the Pension Committee as stated above. The Pension CommiSee shaii not ret'use to entertain the representation/appiicatiQn, if so fiied direct

¶23

,Sd/-.L ,;SatishfeAgnihotri ; ' ^•,;,,,,';!:3Gudge '' ,:

¶24

''-. Raiu

Smt. Anjulata Bareth v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anjulata Bareth v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damodar Prasad Vs Balkrishna Tiwari and Others

Surendra Kumar Sahu Vs the Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Shail Kumari Thawait Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Khorbahra and Ors. Vs Ramkunwar and Anr.

Bsp Karm.Sah.Upbh.Bhan.Mary,Kh.andORS Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

R.D. Mourya Vs State of Chhattisgarh