Shri Bhagwat Upadhyay, aged v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Superintendent Police, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WMT, ORDER OR DIRECTIQNS tfSf v^ SHC! IT!ON PSTITIONEl Shrinivas Upadhyay State of Chhattisgarh and others 0/Vrit Petiiion under Article 226 of the Constltution of India)…
Judgment
Shri Bhagwat Upadhyay, aged about 72 years, Retired Police Constable, R/0 Village- Deval Post Office- Deval, Police Station Gahmar, District Gazipur,( U.P.) RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh Versus ^-" }..-''^.:--° ••t>'^ <b ^' ^ <>' .& ^:/f"^° \ «^ <> <^ through Secretary, Department of Home D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, 2'. General Administrative department (Member Secretary, Pension Nirakaran Samiti) Raipur, (C.G.)
High Power Committee, (Pension Nirakaraa Samiti),0ffice of the Accountant General, Pagaraiya Complex, Pandari, Raipur,(C.G.) ( 4. Director General of Police, Police Quarter, Head Raipur, (C.G.) Chhattisgarh,
Superintendent of Police, Durg, (C.G.)
Superintendent Police, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WMT, ORDER OR DIRECTIQNS tfSf v^ SHC! IT!ON PSTITIONEl Shrinivas Upadhyay State of Chhattisgarh and others 0/Vrit Petiiion under Article 226 of the Constltution of India) iinale Bench: Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Aani !, d. ynn inarasen yahu, counseiror tne petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate forths State. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the repon dated 01-10-2008 passed by the .Hlgh Pov/er Committee vvhereby the ciairn of the petitionei' has been rejected. The said report has been provlded to the petitioner by ietier dated 31-10-2008 issued by the Deputy' Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgam, General Administration Deoartment (2) Earlier, the petitioner seeking retira! benefits fiied a petition bein; W.P.No.221/2002. This Court, by order dated 30-04-2008, after hearinc learned counsei for the partles, dlrected the Committee to consider the matter ofthe retirai dues as the disouted Question offacts v/ere invoivsd.
(3) The Committee comprising of Finance Secretary, State of C.G. as Chairman, Commissioner, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Depuw Accountant General (Funds) and Deputy Secretary, Generai Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh as members. The Cornrnjttee considered the case of the petltioner and passed the order. The Committee on perusat of the a'ocurnents found that the petitioner Vi'as dismissed from sewice on 13-04- 1965. The petltioner v/as glven ful! opportunity to produce the documen'is to the Detitioner was retired from service on 31-10-1974. The the fact petitioner failed to produce any order indicating that the petitioner vi?as retired from service on attaining the age ofsuperannuation on 31-10-1974. (4) On a query, asto whether he can'iSroduce any documerit in this Court fron'i sen/ice on v/ith reaard to hls retirement on 31-10-1974 or dismissal ^ ; ^a:ih. ''4,,. "V.,, 's:'SiaitS.'!!i' •L 13-04-1965, ieamed counsel the petitioner expressed his inability to produce the same.
Even otherwise, on perusal of the impugned order dated it appears that the Committee has gone through 31-10-2008 (Annexure P/1), the entire documents and reached to the conclusion that the petitloner never retired frorn sen/ice after attaining the age of superannuation, but he was dismissed frorn the seroice on 13-04-1965, and as such, the petitioner is not sntitied for anv retirai dues. Looking from ai! angles and considering the documents made avaiiabfe (5) by the petitioner, there is no reason to take a contrary viev/ to the order made bythe Cornmittee on consideration ofthe documents. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the pst'tion, bsins ^evoie of (6) ni©rlt, js disniisssd. .-----'—-———---.-_—.—___^_^ SdA -~"n= Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ;
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.