1 2025:CGHC:40183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2599 of 2020 1 - Uday Mohdiwale S/o Late M.S. Mohdiwale Aged About 63 Years R/o B-2/40, Lokmanya Society, In Front Of Jha Institute, Rohnipuram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Employees Provident Fund Organization Through Commissioner, Regional Office Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh Block D, Scheme 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The State Bank Of India Through Branch Manager, Branch D.D. Nagar, Gol Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation Through Its Managing Director, Urla, Post Bmy Charouda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.14/2025, application for taking document (calculation chart) on record. RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.08.13 17:09:47 +0530 2 2. On due consideration and the submission made by counsel for the respondent No.1, I.A. No.14/2025 is allowed and the documents filed along with the application is taken on record. 3. This petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction and thereby quash the impugned letter no. EPFO/RO/Raipur/HWC/PPO No.78514/CA/2213,2214, dated 17/02/2020 issued by the respondent no.1 by declaring the same is bad in law and hold that, the petitioner is entitle for the pension as per the revised PPO dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure-P/7). 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the recovery of the amount of Rs.2,84,282/- by declaring the act and action of the respondent no. 1 & 2 is bad under the eyes of law and further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents authorities to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner along with the penalty and the penal interest @ 18%. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to impose the exemplary cost upon the responsible respondent no. 1 & 2, those have harassed the retired person, like the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief/relief’s, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petition.” 4. In pursuance of the order dated 18.07.2025, respondent No.1 has filed Calculation Chart (Annexure AR-1/2) along with affidavit showing the 3 manner, in which, amount of pension has been revised in light of the Circular dated 14.02.2024. 5. In view of above and affidavit filed by respondent No.1, this petition is disposed of, as pension of the petitioner has been revised on the basis of Annexure AR-1/2, which is based on Circular dated 14.02.2024 and the same is also conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 7. It is made clear that If petitioner would have any grievance, then, he can take recourse to law, if so advised. 8. In view of above, interim order passed in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 09.07.2020 stands vacated. 9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No orders as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar