← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/3633/2017allowed

Holiram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-08-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy1 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet WPS No. 3633 of 2017 Holiram S/o Ronha, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village- Bodhapara, Post Kanteli, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, Civil And Revenue DistrictMungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Shirpur Bhawan Civil Line, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Engineer Public Works Department, P W D Division Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Executive Engineer Public Works Department, P W D Division Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, P W D Division Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu and Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates For Respondents :

Mr. Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/08/2017 1.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has retired as Contingency Paid Employee and had pensionable service, but the respondents have not granted any pension on his retirement.

2.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the case has already been decided by the Division Bench this Hon'ble Court in W.A. No. 281/2013 and other connected appeals (Lakhan Ram Sahu & others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). The decision of the Division Bench is also affirmed by the Supreme Court while rejecting the appeal preferred by the State Government.

3.

In view of the same, this Court is also inclined to dispose of the present writ petition directing that the respondents shall scrutinize the case of the petitioner and in the event if petitioner is also found similarly placed as the petitioner in W.A. No. 281/2013 in terms of the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 281/2013 in its order dated 26.02.2015, the petitioner also should be granted similar benefits as has been granted to other similarly placed persons.

4.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE sumit