Partly allowed

Harihar Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Sept 2012WPS/1976/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding non-grant of retirement dues. This Court disposed of the matter in terms of a precedent, directing the Advocate General to send the case to a High Power Special Retirement Dues Committee for consideration and payment of dues within four months. Quoted from a scanned image.

What did the court decide?

The office of the Advocate General directed to send the case to the High Power Special Retirement Dues Committee within 15 days for payment of retirement dues within four months.

Harihar Das Manikpuri Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

W.P^(S)JSLo. f^-6 /2012 SjgigS

¶3

HARIHAR DAS MANIKPURI S/o Late Gunadas Manikpuri Aged about 62 years R/o Lingyadih, Rajkishor nagar PS Sarkanda Bilaspur(C.G.)

¶4

PETITIONER
••""^ .-•••-"
••»••
...-••'
A.
Versus
RESPONDENTS
^^
.'•"~'. '^.V-'"'. » ^rtf-'
^^^'
^^;...
U..P3I**

¶5

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, (Department of Woman & Child Development) D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt: RaipurfC.G.)

¶6

The Collector Department of Woman & child Development District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

!!?<:.'Szff.

¶8

District Program officer Department of Woman & child Development District Bilaspur(C.G.)

¶9

Project Officer Department of Woman & child Development Patharia District BilaspurfC.G.)

¶10

The Accountant General Pension, Office Pandari RaipurDist: Raipur-(C.G.)

¶11

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶12

PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER

¶13

As'stated in the cause title above.

¶14

PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS

¶15

As stated in the cause title above.

¶16

3. ^ PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION ISBEtiMG FILED:

¶17

^?/ ..j!S::'a-s':SJS!. .^>"~ tk.

^•^. ''

z-^

XI-HC—78

.€^"

3^ '^WW-1, ^W'IS, Rrtl+fy

¶23

^)^.^^!,^ W^iytl **<!+ '•W[. 20

¶24

		an^r fiw (lyf-l»<<ff)
3T111? ?M 3	RT VS shW-h	TRirwdfefsn^r 'chT'[i^<ft'rT'Iff?Mf^feT^ <^*1-^U ^srfaiisn^i
		SB : Hon'bleShriManindra Mphdin Shrivastava.J. 12-99^012
"?		Shri Dheerendra Pandey,
		W.P.No.1961/2006 (Smr. Keja pa/ Chandrakar Vs. State Govemment of ChhatGsgarh and others), ^nd order dated 13-3-2008 passed in M.C.C. No.105 of 2008 (State ^f Chhattisgarh and othersVs. Baijnath Mandal and anoffiei): Thus, t
		judgment and order datec( 31 January, 2008 passed in W.P.No.4642/2004 (Baijnath IVIjandal (supra) as submitted by learned counsel appearing forthe partiefe. This petition is accordinglydisposed ofin thesameterms i.e., the office of the Advocate General is direcfed to send the case to the

¶25

¶26

75ST '<11<<1«<<, »T{1+1' , Rldl'yy

,,,XI-BC—78

^IHrtt KI

•Wl. 20

3n^?r 'vw (<yf-l«i<ff)
3W nl f<-fi°b '^))^IcT'ifl't ''TPTPff ^t t^S) '{f^i^l^
•3<f[ 3' m WIIR; '^Sifa'I 311^1
Committee, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy
of this order. Thereafter, fhe| Commltiee shait issue ncrtice to the
petitioner and officers concem^d^d within a further pertod of 15 days. Tte
Committee shal! consider and ()ass order, in accordance with law, after
affording properopportunity ofl hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner
anc! the offtoers concemed ma^^ file additional documents, if necessary.
The entire exercise, ineiudingl payment of retiral dues, if any, to the
petitfoner, be compieted withinjja period of four months from the date of
receipt of copy ofthis order.
The petitioner shall supppy one complete set of the petition to the
State counsef as weil as c4unsel for the Accountant General for
transferring the same to the Co^nmittee
SAI-
s^as1 ^a
Deepii
a^0^
^^&tal5^e

Harihar Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harihar Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

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

K.R. Sahu Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. Ors.

Abdul Saban Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Sanjay Kumar Ramteke Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Arun Kumar Maurya Durg Vs Bhilai Steel Plant M.D. and Ors.

Bhagat Ram Kanwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vishnu Ram Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.