S.L. Markam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3553 of 2019 Sunnar Lal Markam S/o Late Shri A. L. Markam, Aged About 57 Years, Presently Posted As Executive Engineer In The Office Of Chief Engineer, Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhavan, Atal Nagar ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chief Engineer, Department Of Public Works, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 10.05.2019

1. The limited prayer which the petitioner at this juncture has made is that there are certain monetary benefits which the petitioner is entitled for but the same till date has not been settled.

2. According to the petitioner, he has not been paid the benefit of first and second time scale pay that he is entitled for on completion of 8 and 16 years of service respectively. Likewise, there were certain annual increments which have not been released to the petitioner.

There are also certain officiating allowances that the petitioner was entitled for discharging the duties of Executive Engineer (in-charge) but the same has not been released to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, for all these claims he has already made representations i.e. Annexures P-11 & P-12 to the authority in the department addressed to respondent no.1 but till date no decision has been taken.

3. Given the entire facts and circumstances of the case, let the respondents 1 & 2 take an appropriate decision on the representations that the petitioner has made in respect of all his monetary claims.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits so far as the entitlement of the petitioner is concerned and the authorities concerned are expected to decide the case of the petitioner purely in accordance with the rules governing the field and also taking note of the punishment order, if any which has been passed during the intervening period.

5. It is expected that respondents 1 & 2 shall take a proper decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondents 1 & 2 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai