SMT. ROHINI YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/7571/2024

Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 09th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010403512024

Filing Number

WPS/23207/2024

Filing Date

18-Nov-2024

Registration No

WPS/7571/2024

Registration Date

20-Nov-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

RETIRAL BENEFITS. ( 601 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

09-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SMT. ROHINI YADAV

    Adv. JITENDRA GUPTA,prakash kumar goswami,prakash kumar goswami, ,prakash kumar goswami

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.Director

  3. 3.Deputy Director

  4. 4.Commissioner

    Adv. PANKAJ AGRAWAL,DHIRAJ KUMAR WANKHEDE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    Case Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court's Lok Adalat disposed of the writ petition filed by retired municipal peon Smt. Rohini Yadav after verifying that the State of Chhattisgarh had paid her Rs. 5,81,517 in arrears of pension and gratuity, thereby redressing her grievance. The petitioner confirmed she no longer wished to pursue the matter and the court accordingly closed the case while reserving her rights for any further legal remedies if necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Nov-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF

  4. 22-Nov-2024

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

  5. 18-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/7571/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court's Lok Adalat disposed of the writ petition filed by retired municipal peon Smt. Rohini Yadav after verifying that the State of Chhattisgarh had paid her Rs. 5,81,517 in arrears of pension and gratuity, thereby redressing her grievance. The petitioner confirmed she no longer wished to pursue the matter and the court accordingly closed the case while reserving her rights for any further legal remedies if necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case