High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6254/2019disposed off

Dr. Suryakant Jha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-08-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6254 of 2019 Dr. Suryakant Jha S/o Late Kk Jha Aged About 68 Years R/o Bunglow No. 1, Pallavi Vihar, Gol Chowk, Police Station D.D. Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Secretary Finance Department, 4th Floor, Block I Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Director Department Of Treasury And Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, A Block, First Floor Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Joint Director Department Of Treasury And Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, A Block, First Floor Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 20/08/2019

1. The substantive grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner is drawing pension which is much less than what he is otherwise entitled for.

2. According to the petitioner he stood retired from the post of Professor w.e.f. 31.12.2006 as the petitioner has been initially given pension of Rs.

22,457/- whereas he ought to had been given Rs. 24,528/-. Further contention of the petitioner is that the persons who were juniors to the petitioner and persons who were appointed along with the petitioner and who have also retired are today receiving more pension than the petitioner. The petitioner also submits that Divisional Joint Director in the department of Treasury, Accounts and Pension vide his letter dated 26.03.2018 has already made a request to the respondent No. 3 for appropriate guidelines/instructions so far as the discrepancy which the petitioner has raised. According to the petitioner till date no decision as such has been taken by respondent No. 3.

3. Given the aforesaid grievance that the petitioner has which could only be resolved on due verification of the service records and comparing the same with similarly placed persons, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to immediately consider the representation which petitioner has made. Petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh representation also if he so wants to respondent No. 3 in this regard. While deciding the representation, respondent No. 3 shall also consider correspondence made by the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur dated 26.03.2018.

4. Let appropriate decision be taken at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit