SHRAVAN KUMAR MISHRA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/4548/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 18th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010223892026

Filing Number

WPS/12815/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPS/4548/2026

Registration Date

15-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

RETIRAL BENEFITS. ( 601 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

18-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRAVAN KUMAR MISHRA

    Adv. Ajay Kumrani,ANKITA GOURHA,ANKITA GOURHA, ,ANKITA GOURHA

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.The Secretary

  3. 3.Director General of Police

  4. 4.Superintendent of Police

  5. 5.Joint Director

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of retired Sub-Inspector Shravan Kumar Mishra's petition seeking higher pay scales and revised pensionary benefits under a 2013 Finance Department circular. Rather than dismissing the petition on grounds of delay (as the State argued), the Court held that salary revision claims constitute recurring causes of action and cannot be barred by limitation. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file representations before the Finance Secretary and DGP, directing them to consider and decide objectively within 120 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/4548/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of retired Sub-Inspector Shravan Kumar Mishra's petition seeking higher pay scales and revised pensionary benefits under a 2013 Finance Department circular. Rather than dismissing the petition on grounds of delay (as the State argued), the Court held that salary revision claims constitute recurring causes of action and cannot be barred by limitation. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file representations before the Finance Secretary and DGP, directing them to consider and decide objectively within 120 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case