In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the pension decision involving the State of Chhattisgarh and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The court directed the authority to decide the petitioner's representation.
The petitioner was directed to make a detailed representation within two weeks to be decided by the competent authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH
WRIT PETITION (s) No.
6 1 3 Q OF 2014
PETITIONER :
. ,.
RESPONDENTS: 1.
/‘ Sm’r. Mangali Bai W/o. Shriyjaduram Rawfe by Casfe Halwa, ag€d about 65 Vears, Occupa’rion Ex- Member of LegislaTive Assembly 148, Keshkal Vidhan Sabha area R/o. Village- Subhash Chowk Keshkal, Thana & Tahsil- Keshkal ,Civil (ST Revenue DisTT.— Kondagaon, (C.G.),
VERSUs
STaTe of Chha’rl‘lsgarh ,ThroughThe Secrefary Law and LegislaTion DeparTmenT, Mahanadi Bhawan Capil‘al Complex Naya Raipur‘, Dis’r’r.— Raipur ( 6.6.)
2.
Chief Manager, Cem‘ral Pension Process Center Govlndpura Bhopal, Dish“.— Bhopal (MP.)
Branch Manager, STaTe Bank of India, Branch Keshkal, DisTT.- Kondagaon ( 6.6.)
S’ral‘e of Madhya Pradesh ,ThroughThe SecreTory Law and Legislaflon Deparl'menf, Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal, Dlsl'T: Bhopal (MP.)
/V
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1.
’PARTICULARs OF THE PETITIONER :
As shown in The cause TiTle.
WWWW
m m...l{x.3.(’..(§2...6.l.?.3 W1; 20H;
mm(‘1§igaég),
| warm | MFRWW | MWI5i§ér§R %3i@mané¥ ' $ |
|---|---|---|
| Atul WWW—ersti—mo |
S. B.: HON’BLE‘SHRI PRlTINKE 06.01 2015 Shn Sunll Sahu counsel fo . Shri Malay ShrivaStava, cot According to the petitioner the old Act ie Madhya Pradeshl ‘ tatha Pensmn (Sanshodhan) Adl' . entitled for the revused penSIon on State ' Counsei submits tl'» representation to respondent No- be decided in accordance with law ‘The present petition is dis; . fresh repreSentation before respo and in turn respondent No 1 m: further three months lt is madeclear that this C(Y of the case and, it wouid be fori representation/a'pplication in acco u—zpoboo. . . Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. f |
g DIWAKER, J. r the State/respondent No 1 nsel for respondent No. 4. she.is getting pension on the basis of Vidha’n Sabha Sadasya Vetan, Bhatta . - urt has not observed anything on'merits i the petitioner iniyam, 1972 Whereas the petitioner is the basis of amended Act, 2011. at let the petitioner ‘makei a detaile 1 and in turn her representation woul )osed of directing the petitioner to file a 1dentNo. 1 within twoiweeks from today* y decide the said representation within the competent aUthority to decide the 'dance with law. . ‘ a M Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker i Judge Jn d. d‘ |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding pension dispute.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Mangali Bai W/o. Shriyjaduram Rawfare
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Law and Legislation Department
Chief Manager, Central Pension Process Center Govindpura Bhopal
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Keshkal
State of Madhya Pradesh Through The Secretary Law and Legislation Department
Dhawaer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
