High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/7095/2019dismissed

Gunwantin Uikey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-09-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7095 of 2019 Gunwantin Uikey W/o Late B. R. Uikey, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Mankesri, Tahsil And District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Directorate Of Treasury, Account And Pension, Block A, First Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

4. Government High School Through Its Principal, Village Largaon (Markatola) Block Narharpur, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh

5. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State :

Mr. P. Acharya, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 09.09.2019

1. The relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondents for grant of family pension considering her appointment to be continuous service from 17.07.2001 onwards.

2. Perusal of the record would show that Annexure P-1 dated 17.07.2001 was not an order of appointment but it was only an order of approval for grant of appointment. However, there was no order of appointment as such issued. Later on, the petitioner had to file a writ petition i.e. WP No. 6274/2005 for a direction to the respondents for grant of appointment.

3. Pending the said writ petition, the respondents issued an order of appointment dated 13.04.2007 and therefore, the writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous. Since 13.04.2007 appears to be the first order of appointment and by which time contributory pension scheme had already been come into force, the petitioner is being granted the benefit under the said scheme. The petitioner under no circumstances would be entitled for the benefit of family pension treating the petitioner to be in continuous service since 2001 since in 2001 there was no order of appointment issued to the petitioner at all.

4. Thus, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner. The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai