Disposed

Mst.Jubeda Bano v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC28 Oct 2014WPS/6150/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge working order disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 regarding the petitioner's PF balance. It directed the respondents to send a copy of the order along with the relevant proposal within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the respondent is directed to send a copy of the order along with the relevant proposal within 15 days.

Mst.Jubeda Bano Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

l \J\r

& “

IN THE HIGH^{COURTOFCHHATTISGARH}

¶5

AT: BILASPUR

¶6

W.P.(S)N§. é/gzJ OF 2009

¶7

¶8

PETlTlONERz^Mst. JV,”^{JubedaBano,aged55years,wifeoflate} Shri Nisar^{Ahmed,residéntofnearMasjidat} Gaurela,^{tahsilPendra,districtBilaspur(C.G.)}

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

r (fState of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, (1) Department^{of Technié‘al’Education,Raipur.}

¶12

The Accountant^{General,Fafadih,Raipur(C.G.).}

¶13

¶14

The Principal Model Industrial Training Institute,

¶15

(3) Kom,^{Bilaspur,d1str1ctBllaspur} (g^G)

¶16

WRIT PETITION^{UNDERARTIéLE226OFTHE}

¶17

. CONSTITUTION^OF, INDIA.

¶18

‘mmm	mm(wag) '	WW§WWI
mmm	mmWm ’ - ‘	, %mf?maué¥[
	Shri Somnath Verma cou ‘ Shrl Anupam Dubey, De State/respondents No 1 & 3 Shrl NK Vyas ASSI respondent No. 2.r Present dispute relates ‘ ? 2,47,859/—. Respondent No. 2 filed replyv stating that ‘authoriza ? 1,62,667I- has already been has fled reply on 15 O4 2011 th has been made to the Accounta 3 PrInCIpal ITI Konl In which for payment of remaining amoun vide Annexure R-3. According proposai, no decision has b No. 2— authority till thisdate. l have heard learned coun It appears that proposal d by respondent No: 3 to respond payment ^{of ? 51} 103/— which is respondents No 2 Accordingly, the respon consrder and take decusion respondent No 3 on 5 3 2011 pr e S.B: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S 28.10.2014:	selforthe petitioner uty Govt Advocate for the ant SolICItor’ General ‘for to payment of G.P.F. of' theAccountant General has ion of payment of a sum o ssued. Thereafter, the State t proposai dated 05 03 2011 t General by respondent No he authorization order order of ? 51,103 has been made the petitioner, on the said taken by the respondent el appearing for the parties. ted 5.3.2011 has been sent . nt No. 2 for authorization of ending consideration ^befor ent No 2 is directed to the proposal sent by ferably Within a period of ^two . f e n ‘V NJAY K. AGRAWAL

R 7 » ki7HC 78

201

mm<Wi

anémm‘éaw ‘ ,mmwm ‘ mm1§mm
‘ WWW r2w mmm
Petitionef is directed i0 seht copy of this order‘v'along
f with pfoposal datéd 5.3.201 1 v lithin 15 days from today to the
authority concerned.
'petition
With the above observations! the writ stiryisk‘xk,
'of. ' /
disposed .1Ki< ,- Sd/—
i iay K. Agrawal
i Sa“
. A Judge

Mst.Jubeda Bano v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mst.Jubeda Bano 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Narayan Prasad Dongare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sacchidanand Patnaik Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited And Ors.

Chhattisgarh Rajya Sah. Bank Mary. Vs Chandra Prakash Vyas and Anr.

Mohammed Saleem Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Disha Education Society Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.