Tilak Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh 64 Wps/6969/2018 ... on 24 October, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 10]

Chattisgarh High Court

Tilak Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh 64 Wps/6969/2018 ... on 24 October, 2018

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                             1

                                                                                NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 6975 of 2018

             Tilak Ram S/o Late Shri Sunhar, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Village
             Gidha, Tehsil Mungeil, Revenue And Civil District Mungeli,
             Chhattisgarh.
                                                                       ---Petitioner
                                             Versus
       1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Public Work
          Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District
          Raipur Chhattisgarh.
       2. Chief Engineer, Public Work Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Civil Line,
          Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
       3. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Mungeli Division, Circle-
          2, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
       4. The Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur
          Chhattisgarh.
       5. The Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District
          Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---Respondents

For petitioner : Shri Aditya Tiwari, Advocate.

For resp.No.4 : Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate.

For State : Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 24/10/2018

1. In the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner was working as a Gangman in the Public Works Department and has retired from service on 09/03/2005.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that, the petitioner had put in more than 25 years of service and also regularized with the respondent/State vide order dated 30/06/1998. He further submits that, though the petitioner has retired from service as a regular employee of the 2 State Government, the respondents have till date not settled the pensionary dues which the petitioner is entitled for, though he has been granted the benefit of Gratuity, etc.

3. Given the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court does not intend to keep the Writ Petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the Writ Petition is disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation claiming his pensionary rights to the respondents No. 2 & 3 within a period of 15 days from today and on such representation being made, the respondents No. 2 & 3 in turn shall decide the same taking into consideration all the relevant circulars applicable and also the instructions issued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. While deciding the claim of the petitioner, they shall also keep in view the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lakhanram Sahu & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WA No. 281 of 2013] at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.

4. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off.

Sd/-


                                                             (P. Sam Koshy)
Sumit                                                            JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court