High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2744/2016allowed

Vijay Sherekar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-07-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2744 of 2016 • Vijay Sherekar S/o Late Shri Gulabrav, Aged About 62 Years R/o Block No. G, Plot No. 2, Nehru Nagar ( East ), Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. The Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhavan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. G.A.

For Corporation :

Mr. Shivraj Singh, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 08-07-2016 Heard.

1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's claim that regular services rendered by the petitioner as regular employee of erstwhile Special Area Development Authority (for short "SADA") Bhilai, where he was initially appointed are liable to be counted for the purposes of pensionable services. He submits that identical issue has been decided by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2016 in batch of petitions WP(S) No.4459 of 2014 and other cases.

2) Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the petitioner's claim of being identically placed as the petitioner, in whose favour, orders were passed in the case referred to above.

3) In view of the above, this petition is also liable to be allowed and is allowed. Let the same benefit accrue to the petitioner as directed by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2016 in similar petition. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) JUDGE