Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39010 (CHH)

VINOD KUMAR BAJPAI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/7046/2018 · 2025-06-29

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:28909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7046 of 2018  Vinod Kumar Bajpai S/o Shri Shiv Mohan Bajpai Aged About 63 Years Retired Chief Municipal Officer, R/o Mohabhatha Bemetara,tahsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgar., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Urban Administration And Development Indrawati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 30-06-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions the petitioner is entitled for gratuity and full pension in accordance with law, with interest till date of actual payment. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 2 pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions to quash the complete departmental enquiry initiated (Annexure P/2) against the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which may deems fit may also be awarded. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to para– 7 of the reply filed by State, amount of gratuity has already been paid to petitioner and he is getting full pension every month, thus petitioner does not want to press relief clause No. 10.1. With regard to relief clause No. 10.2, he submits that petitioner may be permitted to assail the outcome of the pending departmental inquiry, if occasion so arises. 3) No objection from other side. 4) Permission granted. 5) Recording the submission made by Mr. Sharma, this petition stands disposed of reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to challenge the outcome of pending departmental inquiry, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya