Lokendra Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And 6 ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.7399 OF 2007

1. Lokendra Singh S/o Late Shri Jeevan Singh Occupation Sub Engineer Water Resource E/m H.E.M. Plant Division Raipur Cg R/o Maitri Nagar House No. 41 Street No. 3a Risali Sector Bhilai District Durg (CG)

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. The Accountant General Chhattisgarh Accounts/Haqdari Nividh 10, Pagariya Complex Pandari Raipur District Raipur.

3. The Engineer-In-Chief Government Of Chhattisgarh Water Resources Department Civil Line Raipur, CG.

4. The Chief Engineer Mahanadi Pariyojna Water Resources Department Near Bhagat Sing Square Civil Line Raipur, CG.

5. The Executive Engineer E And M Heavy Electrical Machinery Plant Division Raipur Water Resource Department Near Water House Square Raipur, CG.

6. The District Treasury Officer City Treasury Raipur Near Ghari Square Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, CG.

7. The Collector Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, CG. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Himanshu Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Shri SP Kale, Deputy A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 16.05.2018 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is non granting of retiral and pensionery benefits payable to him upon his retirement. 2.

The present is the second round of litigation. The earlier one was WPS No.3212 of 2012 which got disposed of on 05.07.2010 referring the case of the petitioner to the High Powered Committee constituted by the State Govt. for resolving the disputes pertaining to retiral dues. Pursuant to that, the Committee has taken up the matter of the petitioner and in due course of time the Committee has ensured that the entire retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner.

3.

The respondents have already filed a detailed reply with regard to payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. In addition, the State counsel has also produced certain documents which would show that the entire retiral dues payable to the petitioner has since been paid and the reference pending before the Committee has already been closed after the entire payment has been made as is reflected from the correspondence dated 16.12.2010 produced by the State before the court.

4.

Having considered all these documents produced before the court and also on perusal of contents of the documents enclosed in the return, this court is of the opinion that substantial grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby disposed of.

5.

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner in case if any further payment is yet to be paid, the same may be raised by moving a representation before the respondents, who in turn, shall consider and decide the same after perusal of records available with them as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder