High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1347/2016disposed off

Dev Singh Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-07-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1347 of 2016

1. Dev Singh Sahu S/o Late Ramdayal Sahu, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Lafandi, Post Office Beltukri, Police Station & Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattsigarh

2. Kartik Ram Yadu, S/o Tetku Yadu, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Lafandi, Post Office Beltukri, Police Station, & Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

3. Budhram S/o Suklal Sahu, Aged About 62 Years R/o Semhartara, Post Office Kirvai, Police Station, & Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

4. Baliram S/o Kamta Verma, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Dhuma, Police Station, & Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

5. Parasram S/o Nandlal, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Jenjra, Post Office Sursabandha, Police Station, & Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Division Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub Division Office, Water Resources Department, Division Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate, For State :

Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 11/07/2017 Heard.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents in not granting benefit of pension under the provision of Chhattisgarh (Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 despite petitioners rendering their services for more than 25 years.

-22. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.281 of 2013 (Lakhanram Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State also does not dispute the above factual position.

4. Accordingly, this petition is also allowed in the same terms as per the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Lakhanram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) and other connected matters. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen