Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Chattisgarh High Court

Jata Shankar Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh 91 Acqa/25/2016 ... on 19 September, 2018

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                               1

                                                                                   NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 6138 of 2018

             Jata Shankar Mishra S/o Late Shri Suryamani Mishra, Aged About 67
             Years, Retired Assistant Engineer (Sdo), Hydrometeorology, Water
             Resources Sub Division 8, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh).
                                                                          ---Petitioner
                                              Versus
       1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
          Resources, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police
          Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
       2. Chief Engineer, Maha Nadi Godavari Kachhar, Water Resources
          Department, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
       3. State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through The Secretary, Department Of
          Water Resources, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).
                                                                     ---Respondents

For petitioner : Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate.

For State : Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 19/09/2018

1. In the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner has retired from service on 30/09/2012 on the post of Assistant Engineer (SDO), Hydrometeorology, Water Resources Sub Division-8, Ambikapur.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he has retired from service in September-2012, but it is more than 6 years now he has not been paid any retiral dues.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, till the date of retirement, he was not inflicted with any punishment of any nature by which the retiral dues could have been withheld.

2

4. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the State counsel.

5. In the given facts, let the respondent No.1 take a decision in the case of the petitioner so far as releasing of retiral dues is concerned in accordance with the service rules governing the filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

6. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the respondent No.1 of the order passed by this Court.

7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off.

Sd/-


                                                             (P. Sam Koshy)
Sumit                                                            JUDGE