Disposed

Krrishna Kant Upadhyay v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Oct 2022WPS/5939/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed that the petitioner's claim regarding an erroneous deduction in his GPF account be considered by the High Power Committee, citing a prior writ petition. The matter was disposed of in favor of sending the case to the committee.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Office of the Advocate General to send the petitioner's case to the High Power Committee within 3 weeks for consideration of the claim.

Krrishna Kant Upadhyay Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 5939 of 2022

¶5

Krrishna Kant Upadhyay S/o Late Maniklal Upadhyay Aged About 79 Years R/o Behind Maharshi School, Shubham Vihar Road, Mangla, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

------Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Accountant General (Accounts, Treasury and Pension), Pandri, Near Bus Stand, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

Chief Engineer Hasdev Basin, Department of Water Resources, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶11

------- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate

¶13

For Respondents 1 & 3 : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent 2 : Mr. Ashwini Shukla, Advocate

¶14

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶15

ORDER

¶16

11/10/2022

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner retired from his services after attaining age of superannuation on 31.12.2003. On the date of his retirement he was having the deposit of Rs. 1,47,086/- in his GPF account but erroneously Respondent No. 2/ Accountant General issued document showing that there was minus balance of Rs. 15,264/-. Petitioner thereafter had moved representation before the employer on several occasions but his grievance was not considered.

¶18

Learned counsel for Respondents submits that the State Government has constituted a High Power Committee pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1961/2006 ( Smt. Keja Bai Chandrakar vs. State Government and others) passed on 19.06.2006, therefore, this matter may be referred to the High Power Committee, where Respondent No. 1 and 2 shall submit the entire record of

¶19

petitioner with respect to deduction of amount towards GPF and in turn Respondent No. 2 shall consider the claim of petitioner in accordance with law.

¶20

In view of submission made by learned counsel for Respondents, that the High Power Committee is constituted for consideration of claim with regard to retiral dues of the State Government’s employees, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of in the same terms of Writ Petition No. 1961/2006.

¶21

Office of Advocate General is directed to send the case of petitioner to the High Power committee within a period of 03 weeks from today along with copy of order passed by this Court. The Committee shall consider the claim and pass reasoned order within a further period of 03 months from the date of receipt of record, in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Petitioner and the officers of the State Government will be at liberty to submit additional documents, if necessary. Petitioner shall serve one extra set of copy of petition to the counsel for Respondents for forwarding it to Committee. If the petitioner, for any reason, is not satisfied with the outcome of the proceedings, he will be at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing fresh writ petition.

¶22

With the aforesaid direction and observation, this writ petition finally stands disposed of.

¶23

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶24

P a w a n

Krrishna Kant Upadhyay v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krrishna Kant Upadhyay v. the State of Chhattisgarh

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

Lalit Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudhir Tirkey Vs the Chairman

Sanju Kumar Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashutosh Shinde Vs High Court Of Chhattisgarh

Ashutosh Shinde Vs High Court Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Lafarge India Private Limited (Now Known as Nuvoco Vistas Corp. Ltd.) Vs State of Chhattisgarh