BKM*Bn v. The General
Case at a glance
- Bench
- CHIEF, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA
Outcome
Dismissed
With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge
Judgment
WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTS (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH1 ACT, 2006 ^' Arising outofthe impugned order dated 15.03.2011, passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 797 of 2009, by the h-lon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court (Annexure A/l), the appellant most respectfully prefers the present writ appeal on the foilowing facts and grounds amongst others :• FACTS OF THE CASE
That, the appeliant filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 797 of 2009, before the Hon'ble Single Bench, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J ApBellant Petitioner Writ Appeal No.213 of 2011 Shiv Kumari Pandey VERSUS Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ ADoeal under Section 2 (1_) of the^Chhattisaarh Hiah Court LApeeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Appearance: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the Appellant. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents-1,2 and 4. Shri Kashif Shakeel, counsel for respondent-3. JUDGEMENT (23"IJanuary,2013) Ms Shiv Kumari Pandey (the Appellant) was appointed as 1. Assistant Teacher in the year 1974. She retired in the year 2004. There was some dispute regarding post retirement benefits of general provident fund.
The Appellant filed Writ Petition (S) No.2674 of 2007. disposed of with the observation to make a representation before High It was Power Retiral Benefit and Pension Committee, Raipur (the Committee).
The Appellant filed a representation. It was partly allowed on the Appellant filed Writ Petition (S) No.797
01.10.2008. Thereafter, of 2009. Itwasdismissedon 15.03.2011. Hence, the present appeal.
We have heard counsel for the parties. •e=T=- ^ 'S.BSSt "•%.. ^.^ , ^•" ^
The counsel for the Appellant submits that: • The order dated 01.10.2008 is neither final nor correct as during the pendency of the appeal ?57,787/-; itself, she has been paid a sum of • The order dated 01 .10.2008 is illegal and should be set aside.
Accountant General Office has also filed their reply in the writ In their petition. confusion regarding a sum of ?11,640/- and a clarification was sought they had mentioned that there was some reply, from the department and after clarification in case any amount is still due it will be paid along with interest to the Appellant.
Shri Kashif Shakeel, the counsel for Accountant General, states that after this clarification the aforesaid amount was found to be due. It comes to ?57,787/- with interest. It was authorised to be paid to the Appellant and apart from this, no other amount is to be paid.
It is not disputed that the amount awarded by the Committee has been paid to the Appellant. Whether any amount is still due or not, is a is always question of fact. open to her to file a suit. In case, the Appellant is still aggrieved,
Operative part
With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
LApeeal to Division Bench Act, 2006.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.