Santram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3397 of 2015 Santram S/o Chedilal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village And Post- Koni (Badi) Police Station- Koni Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Public Works Department Naya Raipur Mantralay Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director Treasure, Accounts And Audit Department, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri KPS Gandhi, Advocate For State :

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 29/08/2016

1. Learned counsel for the State prays for further time of 4 weeks to file reply. However, in view of the order dated 26/02/2015 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.281/2013 (Lakhanram Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.) and batch of appeals, this case is also required to be finally disposed off.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order of the Division Bench passed in the case of Lakhanram Sahu (supra) and batch of appeals, the period of services rendered by the petitioner after completion of five years of contingency service are required to be treated as temporary and consequently for pension purposes. He submits that otherwise also, as the petitioner had completed six years of service after

-2his regular appointment, he is entitled to pension in view of provisions contained in Pension Rules, 1979.

3. Learned State counsel submits that though there is no quarrel with the legal proposition in the judgments of this Court, whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit, would depend upon whether the petitioner is similarly situated and verification of facts with regard to date of appointment, regular appointment and date of retirement.

4. Considering the submission, this petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner's case in the light of order dated 26/02/2011 passed in W.A.No.281/2013 and batch of petitions and upon verification of facts, if it is found that the petitioner is similarly situated, same benefit shall be extended to the petitioner in accordance with law.

5. Considering that the petitioner has already retired as contingency employee, it is directed that decision should be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen