Sarju Ram, v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5475 of 2020 Sarju Ram, S/o Lt. Shri Jodhan Ram, Aged About 64 Years Village Sundarpur, Post Office - Sirsi, Tehsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company, Through Managing Director, Head Office, Daganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Executive Director (Human Resource) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Head Office Daganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Executive Engineer O and M, CSPDCL, Namnakal Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

4. Managing Director, CSPHCL, Head Office, Daganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 22/01/2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is in respect of the disability/ invalidate pension that the petitioner is entitled for.

2. According to the petitioner, he was working under the erstwhile State of M.P. Electricity Board during 1993 as an Attendant Grade-III. Contention of the petitioner is that in the course of discharging the duties the petitioner met with an accident on 26.03.1993. The accident arose when the petitioner had climbed up the electricity pole for repair work from where he fell down. According to the petitioner as a consequence of the said

accident he suffered serious injuries on his left hand, resulting in the amputation of the whole left hand and which has resulted in 100% disability to the petitioner. Considering the disability, the services of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 08.01.1994. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though for the disability the petitioner has received compensation but so far as Invalidate Pension is concerned the same has not been given to the petitioner in spite of having made repeated representation to the authorities concerned. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a circular in the Department which reflects that department has taken a policy decision for grant of invalidated pension to the employees who have suffered injuries in the course of employment w.e.f. 01.04.1987 and therefore the petitioner also would be entitled for the same.

3. Given the said facts and also considering the nature of claim, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition admitted calling upon the reply to the writ petition rather ends of justice would meet if the petitioner is directed to make fresh representation for grant of Invalidated Pension to the respondent no.2 to 4 within a period of three weeks supported with all relevant circulars and orders in support of his claim, respondent no.2 to 4 in turn shall decide the same purely in accordance with law within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit