Kirtidas Manikpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.2788 OF 2019

1. Kirtidas Manikpuri S/o Late P.D. Manikpuri Aged About 64 Years R/o Village And Post- Ghuresena, Tahsil- Nawagarh, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Forest Divisional Officer Through Forest Division Officer, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Treasury Officer Through Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Divisional Deputy Director Through Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur, Division- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. District Treasury Officer Through Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12.04.2019 1.

The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in this petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider grant of benefit of 6th Pay Commission payable to the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case is that, the petitioner working as Forest Ranger retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2008. Subsequently, the State Govt. implemented 6th Pay Commission to the government employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The contention of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has retired in the year, 2008 and was entitled for the benefit of 6th Pay Commission, but till date the respondents have not granted the benefit of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioner inspite of repeated representations.

3. Given the limited grievance that the petitioner has raised, let the case of the petitioner be duly processed by the respondent No.1, who in turn shall decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the

benefit of 6th Pay Commission and whether the same has been extended to the petitioner or not. If not, if the petitioner is entitled for the said benefit, then appropriate direction be issued for implementation of the benefit of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioner forthwith and necessary compliance be completed within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 is expected to duly verify the same before passing any order.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder