Milau Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7510 of 2019 Milau Ram S/o - Late Sonu Ram, aged About 66 Years, R/o - Village Kurshipar, Post Office Dudhli, Tahsil and District Balod Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Joint Director, Pension Funds and Accounts Department, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

3. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State :

Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/09/2019

1. The claim of the petitioner is that the present writ petition is for appropriate direction to the respondents to consider the past services rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.

2. Contention of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a Contingency Paid Employee under the respondents and his initial engagement was of the year 1984 and petitioner in between was regularized vide order dated 20.08.2008 and later on the petitioner

on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2014. According to the petitioner applying the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lakhan Ram Sahu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, in WA No. 281/2013 decided on 26.02.2015 , the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for grant of pension and pensionary benefits.

3. Given the limited grievance that the petitioner has, let respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefits. That while considering the case of the petitioner respondents shall consider the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lakhan Ram Sahu (Supra). The respondents would also consider the circulars of the State Government particularly the instructions issued by the Finance Department wherein they have ordered for considering the services rendered as Daily Wage Employees prior to the regularization for the purpose of quantifying length of service for pension and pensionary benefits.

4. It is expected that respondent would decide the claim of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 4 months.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit