F. AHAMAD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/3913/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010173022026

Filing Number

WPS/9992/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

WPS/3913/2026

Registration Date

02-May-2026

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. 1.F. AHAMAD

    Adv. NEERAJ CHOUBEY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Municipal Corporation Bilaspur

    Adv. Pranjal Shukla

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF

    Case Summary: WPS/3913/2026 - F. Ahamad v. State of Chhattisgarh The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the petition directing the State and Municipal Corporation Bilaspur to decide the petitioner's representations regarding unpaid retiral dues within two months. F. Ahamad, retired on 30.04.2024 after superannuation, had received only anticipatory pension instead of full retirement benefits and submitted multiple representations that remained undecided. The respondents did not oppose the limited relief sought, and the court issued binding directions for expeditious consideration in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/3913/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPS/3913/2026 - F. Ahamad v. State of Chhattisgarh The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the petition directing the State and Municipal Corporation Bilaspur to decide the petitioner's representations regarding unpaid retiral dues within two months. F. Ahamad, retired on 30.04.2024 after superannuation, had received only anticipatory pension instead of full retirement benefits and submitted multiple representations that remained undecided. The respondents did not oppose the limited relief sought, and the court issued binding directions for expeditious consideration in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case