Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 61206 (CHH)

AJENDRA NATH DUBEY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/13676/2025 · 2025-12-10

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:CGHC:60265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13676 of 2025 1 - Ajendra Nath Dubey S/o Sri Ambkeshwar Dubey Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Shivpur, Post Office Srinagar, (Ramanujnagar) District- Sarguja (Chhattigarh) -497220 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department, Of School Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh -492002 2 - Secretary Department, Of School Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh -492002 3 - Director Department, Of School Education Department, Pension Bada Road W, Vivekanand Nagar, Tagore Nagar Raipur , Chhattisgarh -492001 4 - Collector Samagra Shiksha, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Regional Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex D, Block Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh -492004 6 - Regional Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation -Ii Employees Provident Fund Office Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495004 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer For R/4 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For R/5&6 : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.12.11 18:52:11 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 11.12.2025 1. The present petition has been instituted by the petitioner seeking a direction for release of his Employees’ Provident Fund. 2. Let the petitioner submit a fresh application before the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation claiming his EPF contribution in accordance with the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Upon such application being submitted, the respondents shall examine the claim and do the needful. 3. In view of the aforesaid direction, the writ petition (S) stands disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore