Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15411 (CHH)

DR. VYAS NARAYAN DUBEY v. THE VICE CHANCELLOR

WPS/625/2019 · 2026-01-11

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:1676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 625 of 2019 Dr. Vyas Narayan Dubey S/o Late Shri Manrakhan Lal Dubey Aged About 66 Years Retired Professor Literature And Linguistic Pt. Ravishanker Shukla University Raipur, Chhattisgarh. R/o B-2/5, Manas Kunj, Lokmanya Society, Rohinipuram Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The Vice Chancellor Pt. Ravishanker Shukla University Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through Registrar.] 3 - State of Chhattisgarh The Secretary Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Dubey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar. G.A. and Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Adv. respectively ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 12.01.2026 1. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 02.01.2026, concerned OIC, namely, Akhileshwar Singh Tanwar, Finance Officer, PRSV, Raiupr (respondent No.02) and Dr. Babita Dubey, Assistant Director, Directorate of Higher Education (respondent No.03) are present SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 before the Court. Henceforth, their appearance are dispensed with. 2. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the relief claimed in this petition has already been granted to the petitioner, therefore, this petition may be disposed of. However, in order to challenge deduction towards Contributory Provident Fund, which has been done illegally, alongwith Annexure-R/8 proceeding dated 20.12.2019, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file a separate petition. 4. The other side has no objection. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of by reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to question the order of deduction towards Contributory Provident Fund alongwith Annexure-R/8 proceeding dated 20.12.2019 by filing separate/fresh petition in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if