Sanat Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5112 of 2018 Sanat Kumar Tiwari S/o Late K.N.Tiwari, aged about 88 years, Retired Professor, R/o 4th School RD, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Accountant General, Near Vidhan Shabha Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Director, Technical Education, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, Block - A, First Floor, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. -

5. Joint Director, Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. -

6. Principal, Government Engineering College, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

7. Senior Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate.

For respondent No.2 :

Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate.

For respondents No. 1 :

Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Dy.A.G.

3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10/08/2018 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that though he has retired from service as early as in the year 1983, he has not been provided with the benefits of revision of his pension that has occurred from time to time.

2.

The counsel for the petitioner referred to correspondence made by the Additional Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension dated 20/09/2017 wherein there are certain correspondence which reveals that the petitioner infact is entitled for the benefits of revision of pay, but it seems that it has not been given to the petitioner.

3.

Given the nature of dispute raised by the petitioner and also considering the age of the petitioner wherein the petition reflects that he is more than 88 years of age, this Court is not inclined to keep the Writ Petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if a direction is given to the respondents No. 2 & 3 to immediately process the claim of the petitioner for grant of revised pensionary benefits which he is otherwise entitled for. 4.

Let this exercise be done within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of order of this Court.

5.

It shall be the duty of the petitioner to bring the order of this Court to the notice of the respondents No. 2 & 3.

6.

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE