Disposed

Smt. Ayodhya Bai v. the Executive Dir.Fin.C.G.Po.Ho.and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Oct 2013WPS/6775/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondents to pay the entire retirement dues of the petitioner's late husband within four months, recording the government's submission that only GPF remained unpaid due to missing passbook. The petitioner was allowed to approach the Court again if dissatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pay complete retirement dues to the petitioner within 4 months.

Smt. Ayodhya Bai Vs the Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

Writ Petition fS) No. ^'7f-^5^of2011 S^

¶2

PETITIONER:

¶3

Smt. Ayodhya Bai, aged 60 years, widow of Kunj Bihari Yadu, resident of Village Dongripali, P.0. Pithora, District Mahasamund

Versus

RESPONDENTS:

^
^^"
/<^"^.<'\v

¶9

¶10

¶11

The Executive Director, Finance, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) Deputy General Manager (Finance and Administration) C.G. State Power Holding Corapany Limited, Raipiir, Tehs.il and District Raipur (CG) The Assistant Manager (Pensionj Chhattisgarh State Power Holdin$ Company Liraited, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur The Executive Engineer (O & M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Tehsil Korea, District Manendragarh

¶12

-'L...

¶13

¶14

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WP^S)No.6775of2011

PETITIONER

Smt. Ayodhya Bai

-Versus-

RESPONDENTS:

The Executive Director, Finance, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited & others

¶21

Present :Shri Ram KumarTiwari, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Sunil Otwani, counsel for the respondents.

¶22

Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J.

¶23

ORALORDER

¶24

(3-10-2013)

¶25

The petitioner's late husband was working as AG-II in the department of erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board, which is now represented by its successor in interest Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited.

¶26

Grievance raised in this writ petition is that despite death of her husband in 1993, complete retiral dues have not been paid to the petitioner.

¶27

Shri Otwani, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that he has received instructions from the respondents that the petitioner is getting regular pension and almost all the dues have been paid to her. However, he would fairly submit that some dues including GPF are still unpaid for want of submission of passbook by the petitioner. He would submit that the said part of the retiral dues shall also be paid to the petitioner within 4 months.

¶28

Submission made learned counsel for the respondents is recorded and on the basis of said submission, it is directed that the respondents shall make complete payment of entire retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of 4 months from today.

¶29

It is made clear that in the event tbat the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount paid to her, she would be at liberty to move afresh before this Court.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Frashant kumar Mishra Judge

¶33

Barve

Smt. Ayodhya Bai v. the Executive Dir.Fin.C.G.Po.Ho.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ayodhya Bai v. the Executive Dir.Fin.C.G.Po.Ho.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Purna Chatterjee Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Anshu Gupta and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Baijnath Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Karan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bhupendra Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.