1 2025:CGHC:42384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3065 of 2021 * - Dr. Savita Bisen W/o Shri Narendra Kumar Bisen, Aged About 47 Years R/o Plot No. 64, Zone 1, Street 1, New Adarsh Nagar, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Veterinary Department (Pashudhan Vikas Vibhag), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University, Through The Vice-Chancellor, Camp Office, College Of Dairy Science And Food Technology, Camp Office, Vaishali Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University, Through Dean, Veterinary College, Anjora, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Vithika Choubey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Mr. Yashwant Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the petitioner's service from the year 2000 till date. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.27 17:00:17 +0530 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 1 and 2 to transfer the amount of PF as deducted from the petitioner's salary as per the Pension Scheme from the year 2000 to 2012. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 3 and 4 to give the benefit of the Pension Scheme counting the regular service of the petitioner from the year 2000, as at that time the Pension Scheme was applicable. 10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favor of the petitioner may kindly be passed. 2. Ms. Vithika Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon under respondents No. 1 and 2 vide order dated 29.05.2000. She would submit that pursuant to an Advertisement issued by respondent No.3, for post of Assistant Professor, she submitted her application and subsequently she was appointed and she joined service on 04.07.2012. She would contend that respondents No. 3 has not reckoned the services of the petitioner for period from 2000 to till 2012. She would contend that respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to transfer the amount of Provident Fund in the account of respondent No. 3 and further respondent No. 3 may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to continuity of service. Ms. Vithika Choubey would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation before respondents No. 1 and 3. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. Mr. Yashwant Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 would submit that the petitioner participated in fresh recruitment process and thereafter she was appointed on the post of Assistant 3 Professor under respondent No. 3, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim continuity of service. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner with regard to amount of Provident Fund for period from 2000 to 2012, it has to be redressed on the part of respondents No. 1 and 2. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate would support the contention made by Mr. Yashwant Thakur. 6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned respective Advocates, without making any observation on the merits of the case, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondents No. 1 and 3 within a period of 15 days and in turn, the said authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in objective manner preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti