Disposed

B. L. Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2024WPS/529/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a writ petition regarding non-issuance of No Dues Certificate and delay in retiral dues, this court directed the petitioner to appear for Stock Register verification, ordered the respondent corporation to decide the claim within six months, stayed a recovery notice, and directed clearance of anticipatory pension.

What did the court decide?

Order directs petitioner to appear for Stock Register verification; Respondent No.3 to decide claim in six months; recovery notice stayed; anticipatory pension to be cleared.

B. L. Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 529 of 2024

¶5

B. L. Pandey, S/o Late Shri Rewa Prasad Pandey, Aged About 65 Years, Occupation Retired Deputy Director Agriculture, R/o Near Muktayar Ganj Railway Fatak, Govind Puri Colony, Satna, District - Satna Madhya Pradesh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawa, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Director, Directorate Of Agriculture Department, Block-II, Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Seed And Agriculture Development Corporation Ltd., Beej Bhawan, Telibandha, Post Ravi Gram, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title, as taken from CIS System)

¶13

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Order on Board

06.02.2024

Heard.

Petitioner while working with the State government had been sent on deputation to Respondent No.3 from where he was retired on

¶19

¶20

31.01.2021. Even after his retirement, he has not received any retiral dues as Respondent No.3 has not issued the ‘No Dues Certificate’ in favour of him. The petitioner in his first round of litigation before this Court bearing WPS No.3653 of 2023 directing the petitioner to approach Respondent No.3 on 10.07.2023 and complete all the requisite formalities required for the issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’ and Respondent No.3 is also directed to render full co-operation in obtaining requisite documents and further formalities from the petitioner for issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’ vide order dated 03.07.2023. It was further directed that upon receipt of ‘No Dues Certificate’ the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall ensure that the entire admissible retiral dues is proceeded and released to the petitioner within a further period of 60 days.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 03.07.2023, the petitioner has appeared before Respondent No.3 on 10.07.2023, 20.10.2023 and again on 06.11.2023 but Respondent No.3 had not issued ‘No Dues Certificate’ in favour of the petitioner and not decided his claim of retiral benefits. However, vide order dated 17.01.2024 (Annexure P/15), Respondent No.3 had issued a notice for recovery of amount of Rs.1,63,364.40/- from the petitioner.

¶22

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 proposed that this writ petition may be disposed of directing the petitioner to again approach Respondent No.3 for issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’ and also to co-operate for verification of stock register of Respondent No.3 positively. He further proposed that on making of such effort by the

¶23

¶24

petitioner, Respondent No.3 will decide the claim of the petitioner within six months. He further agrees that till the decision on the claim of the petitioner, Respondent No.3 will not proceed further in pursuance with the recovery notice dated 17.01.2024 (Annexure P15).

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner agrees with the proposal made by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and he further submits that any date which may be given by this Court for appearance of the petitioner before the Respondent No.3. He further prays that till the decision of the matter the effect and operation of impugned recovery notice dated 17.01.2024 may be stayed.

¶26

On the basis of above submissions, this petition is disposed of and the petitioner is directed to remain present before Respondent No.3 positively between 26.02.2024 to 29.02.2024 and co-operate with Respondent No.3 for verification of Stock Register. The Respondent No.3 is also directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within an outer limit of ‘ six months’ from the first date of appearance of the petitioner. Till then the effect and operation of the impugned recovery notice dated 17.01.2024 (Annexure P/15) shall remain stayed. Meanwhile, respondents are also directed to clear the anticipatory pension of the petitioner for which he is entitled for.

¶27

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

¶28

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶29

Abhigya.S

B. L. Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. L. Pandey 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

Ajmer Singh Vs Bhilai Steel Plant

Prafulla Kumar Bapat Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

Usha Bhosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Amirulla Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anita Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lata Chawda Vs State of Chhattisgarh