Chattisgarh High Court
Chairman Chhattisgarh State ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 November, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 351 of 2021
1. Chairman Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Vidyut Seva Bhawan,
Dangania, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492013 through Chhattisgarh State
Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Incorporated As Per Section 131, To 134 Of
Electircity Act, 2003 And Now Responsible For Power Distribution)
Represented By Suresh Kumar Jangde, Aged 45 Years S/o Shri M. R.
Jangde, Executive Engineer City Division 2, Nehru Nagar CSPDCL
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2. The Executive Director (Bilaspur Region) Chhattisgarh State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. Tifra, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh through
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Incorporated As Per
Section 131, To 134 Of Electircity Act, 2003 And Now Responsible For
Power Distribution) Represented By Suresh Kumar Jangde, Aged 45
Years S/o Shri M. R. Jangde, Executive Engineer City Division 2, Nehru
Nagar CSPDCL Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3. The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd. (Town) Division 2, West Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur through
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Incorporated As Per
Section 131, To 134 Of Electircity Act, 2003 And Now Responsible For
Power Distribution) Represented By Suresh Kumar Jangde, Aged 45
Years S/o Shri M. R. Jangde, Executive Engineer City Division 2, Nehru
Nagar CSPDCL Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chairman and Special Secretary, Energy
Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Indu Khandey W/o Late Vishnu Khandey Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Kisan Parsada, Tehsil Masturi P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause Title has been taken from Case Information System)
_______________________________________________________________
For Appellants : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shubham Verma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Advocate
_______________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
24.11.2021
Heard Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. Shubham Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State appearing for
respondent No.1 and Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2.
2. This writ appeal is filed against an order dated 13.09.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.4843 of 2021, whereby, the learned
Single Judge disposed of the matter giving the following directions :
"4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of
directing the respondents No.2 to 4 to process the entire
claim of the petitioner and to settle the death-cum-retiral dues
payable to the petitioner upon the death of her husband
within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the
copy of this order, which shall include payment of arrears of
all outstanding dues from the date of death till the date of
actual payment. In case if the payments are not cleared
within a period of 90 days, the entire amount payable to the
petitioner shall carry interest @10% per annum from the date
of death till the date of actual payment."
3. Mr. Sharma submits that though direction was issued to
respondents No. 2 to 4 to process the entire claim of the petitioner and to settle
the death-cum-retiral dues on account of death of employee, namely, Vishnu
Khandey, no notice was issued to respondents No. 2 to 4 and as such,
respondents No.2 to 4 had no opportunity to contest the case of the petitioner.
It is further submitted that the status of the writ petitioner, as a sole legal heir of
the deceased employee, is sub-judice before the Civil Court and there are
apparently, other legal heirs. It is in that circumstance, it is submitted by him
that direction to pay death-cum-retiral dues including payment of arrears of all
outstanding dues to the petitioner is not sustainable in law.
4. Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner
submits that it does not appear that notices to the respondents No.2 to 4 were
issued or that they were heard.
5. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to show
that for the petitioner, Mr. Chitendra Singh, learned Advocate had appeared
and for the State, Smt. Binu Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer had appeared.
6. Admittedly, respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are not under the State
Government as Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board is a separate entity.
7. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that an
opportunity ought to have been granted to respondents No. 2 to 4 to put forth
their version of the case before the writ petition was disposed of. Passing of
the order, without notice to respondents No. 2 to 4, has resulted in violation of
principles of natural justice.
8. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge is
set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration.
9. We, however, hasten to add that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case of either of the parties.
10. Resultantly, the writ appeal is allowed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Goutam Bhaduri)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
