Janohar Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2104 of 2017 • Janohar Lal S/o Tankhoo Ram, Aged About 68 Years Retired R.I ; Aged About 68 Years ; R/o Village Khapradeeh ; Post Tundara; Tahsil Kasdol ; District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Revenue And Desired Management Department, Mantralay Capital Complex Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur; Police Station & Post New Raipur ; Tehsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector Balodabazar; District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

3. S. D. O. Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

4. Joint Director Raipur, Fund Account And Pension Raipur; District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

5. District Treasury OfÏcer, Balodabazar; District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

6. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch Bilaigarh; Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 3/5/2017

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is a retired Revenue Inspector. The petitioner has

retired from the post of Revenue Inspector on 30.06.2009. He is claiming pension and arrears on the basis of revised pay scale.

3. It is argued that despite order dated 17.11.2014 by the Additional Treasury OfÏcer, District Treasury, Raipur, the amount mentioned therein and further payment on the basis of revised pension calculation, have not been granted or disbursed to the petitioner. He would also submit that despited repeated representations filed by the petitioner collectively vide Annexure P/2, no action has been taken nor the petitioner has been informed about the outcome of his representations.

4. Considering the entire facts' situation of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that in the event, the petitioner prefers fresh representation before the competent authority, the competent authority shall decide the petitioner's representation at the earliest, preferably within a period of 02 months from the date of submission of representation.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent authority shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna