Disposed

Radha Raman Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Feb 2019WPS/697/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by an office assistant seeking regular salary unpaid from 2011 to 2018. The High Court directed the Commissioner to scrutinize the case within 90 days and either release dues or explain administrative reasons. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to process the case, scrutinize salary payment from 2011 to date, determine administrative reasons if any, and complete the exercise within 90 days. Petition disposed.

Radha Raman Gupta Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 697 of 2019

¶5

Radha Raman Gupta S/o Late Ram Narayan Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, Presently Posted As Office Assistant At Zila Saiyojak Office, Adim Jati Vikas, Mahasamund, R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Adam Jati And Anushucit Jati Vikas Mantralaya, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur), District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Commissioner, Adam Jati And Anushucit Jati Vikas Mantralaya, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur), District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Assistant Commissioner, Adam Jati And Anushucit Jati Vikas Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, (Naya Raipur), District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy. G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board

¶14

13.02.2019

¶15

The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioner from 2011 onwards has not been paid the regular salary that he is entitled for.

¶16

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents

¶17

¶18

have been refusing salary to the petitioner intermittently and the petitioner has not been paid salary for many months in between 2011 to 2018. He submits that the petitioner has made a representation Annexure P-4 to the respondents on 06.05.2017 and reminder has also subsequently been sent but the respondents have not take any decision on the representation.

¶19

Given the limited dispute that the petitioner has, let respondent no.2 process the case of the petitioner and scrutinize whether the petitioner has been paid the entire salary for each month during which he had worked from 2011 till date. If the entire salary has not been paid, prompt steps be taken for releasing the same. While scrutinizing the case of the petitioner, respondent no.2 shall also consider whether there is any administrative reason for not paying the salary. If there is any administrative reason, the same may also be intimated to the petitioner. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 90 days form the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶20

With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

Sd/P. Sam Koshy Judge

¶22

Khatai

Radha Raman Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Raman Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Bharatram Sahu Vs the Collector

Hariram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surendra Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Kumar Thakkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amit Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh through Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Mantralaya

Mithalesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh