SMT. JAYANTI BAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/2995/2025
Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.
CNR: CGHC010153582025
Filing Number
WPS/8670/2025
Filing Date
17-Apr-2025
Registration No
WPS/2995/2025
Registration Date
26-Apr-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )
Sub-Category
RETIRAL BENEFITS. ( 601 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SMT. JAYANTI BAI
Adv. SUMIT SINGH RATHORE,Suruchi Singh Rathore,Suruchi Singh Rathore, ,ASSEEM BHAGWAT GOPAL,Suruchi Singh Rathore
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
-
2.Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit,
-
3.Registrar,
-
4.Joint Registrar,
-
5.Depputy Registrar,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF
Case Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of Smt. Jayanti Bai's writ petition seeking back salary, family pension, gratuity, and compensation from the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Bank by directing her to submit a fresh comprehensive representation to the Bank (Respondent No. 2) with all grounds and supporting documents. The court ordered the Bank to consider and decide the representation expeditiously within two months, rather than adjudicating the substantive claims directly at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Jul-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
-
30-Apr-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF
-
30-Apr-2025
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
-
17-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. WPS/2995/2025
Case Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of Smt. Jayanti Bai's writ petition seeking back salary, family pension, gratuity, and compensation from the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Bank by directing her to submit a fresh comprehensive representation to the Bank (Respondent No. 2) with all grounds and supporting documents. The court ordered the Bank to consider and decide the representation expeditiously within two months, rather than adjudicating the substantive claims directly at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts