← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/995/2018disposed off

Manglu Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-01-31Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 995 of 2018

1. Manglu S/o Ram Badrinath, Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Village Ronje, Tahsil Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

2. Mayaram, S/o Sadhuram, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Degalram, Tahsil Dantewda, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

3. Man Singh, S/o Nadgu, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Kuwakonda, Tahsil Kuakonda, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

4. Mahetar, S/o Kalam Singh, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Ronje, P.S. Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

5. Maniram, S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Bacheli, Tahsil Bacheli, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D. Sub Division Bacheli, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

5. The Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D. Sub Division Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

6. The District Treasury And Pension Department, Dantewada, District South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 31/01/18 1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that respondent authorities are not granting pensionary benefits to the petitioners and, therefore, they may be allowed to make representation before the respondent authorities in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 281 of 2013 (Lakhanram Sahu & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other connected writ appeals, decided on 26.02.2015.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3.

The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable and is accordingly allowed.

4.

Be that as it may, the petitioners are at liberty to make representation before the respondent authorities in view of the order passed in Lakhanram Sahu & Others (supra) along with copy of this order and, in turn, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the petitioners' representation for grant of pensionary benefits expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with the representation after hearing the parties. 5.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed off. No cost(s).

SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka