High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/706/2017disposed off

R. A Sharma Ramashrya Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-02-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.706 of 2017 R. A Sharma (Ramashrya Sharma) S/o Late Ramfal Mishra, Aged About 61 Years Working As Assistant Grade- Il, Sub Treasury, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Accountant General Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Balodabazar Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Director, Directorate Treasury, Account & Pension Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Joint Directorate, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/02/2017 (1) Heard.

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made representation before respondent authorities for grant of benefit of time bound pay (Samayman Vetanman) as per circular dated 08.04.2008 of the State Government though he has completed 20 years of his service

which has not been considered and decided till now and therefore, direction may be issued to respondent authorities to decide the same expeditiously.

(3) Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

(4) In view of above, respondent authorities are directed to consider and take a decision on the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of time bound pay (Samayman Vetanman) as per circular dated 08.04.2008 of the State Government preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(5) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and respondent authorities would be at liberty to decide the case of the petitioner as per rule. (6) With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-