SMT. ANUPAMA RATH v. SMT. FARIHA ALAM SIDDIQUE
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOUTAM BHADURI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Chhattisgarh judgment dated 2020-09-30. SMT. ANUPAMA RATH v. SMT. FARIHA ALAM SIDDIQUE. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 687 of 2020 • Smt. Anupama Rath W/o Late Shri Sushil Kumar Rath, who Was Working As Assistant Grade-II, Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 4 Near H. P. Gas Godown Patera-Pali, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Fariha Alam Siddique The Chief Executive, Officer Zila Panchayat, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3 In The Writ Petition) 2. Mr. Kuleshwar Prasad Gaikwad The Chief Executive, Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 4 In The Writ Petition) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Aman Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 30/09/2020 1. Heard. 2. It is contended that despite the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 8489 of 2019 on 16. 10. 2019 wherein this Court has directed the respondents No.
3 & 4 to decide the entitlement of the pensionary benefit of the petitioner within a further period of 60 days, the respondent authorities have not decided the claim of the petitioner within the stipulated time. 3. Perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 2 would show that the appropriate decision has been taken by the respondent authority and it has been decided that the petitioner is not entitled for any pension as there is no such provision for grant of pension to the employees of Janpad Panchayat. 4. Pursuant to the reply filed by the Respondent No. 2, it appears that no deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 16. 10. 2019 passed in WPS No. 8489 of 2019 is made out as the entitlement of the pensionary benefit of the petitioner has been denied. Accordingly, the rule is discharged. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy as available to him under the law. 5.
With the aforesaid observation, the contempt petition stands disposed of. SD/-Sd/-- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu
Source: High Court of Chhattisgarh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.