Smt. Geeta Tiwari v. The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited
WPS/2036/2017 · 2025-07-20
Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4286 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4286 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2036 of 2017 1 - Smt. Geeta Tiwari W/o Shri Mahesh Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Unemployed, R/o Village Dharavibha, Post And Thana Garh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Rewa Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Through Its Director General Manager H R D, Daganiya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh,
District
:
Raipur,
Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Director, Human Resources Holding Company Limited, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Daganiya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer City Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Compnay Limited, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 21-07-2025 1) At the very outset, Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate submits that order of termination of services has already been passed against Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.21 18:05:03 +0530
2 petitioner’s husband and same has not been challenged in this petition. 2) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to challenge the said order before appropriate authority in order to further claim retiral dues and compassionate appointment. 3) No objection from other side. 4) Taking into consideration the fact that order of termination of services has already been passed against petitioner’s husband and said order has not been challenged this petition, therefore, no relief cannot be granted as sought in this petition. 5) Accordingly, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to challenge the order of termination before the appropriate authority.
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya