Shrikant Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7871 of 2018 Shrikant Singh S/o Late Suryabhan Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Retired Assistant Grade-III (VRS), Qr.No.Dop-04, Balaji Colony, Near Uslapur Over Bride, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Engineer-In-Chief, Department Of Water Resources, Chhattisgarh, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Nahar Water Management Division, Janjgir District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

4. Superintending Engineer, Hasdeo Project Division, Rampur, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Laywer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/12/2018 1.

In the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner is suffering from Cancer and on account of his illness, he had taken voluntary retirement from Government Employment.

2.

Present Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondent No.1 to pass an appropriate order granting the benefit of two Kramonnati/Time Scale Pay which the petitioner was entitled for and for which he became eligible while he was in service.

3.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, on account of his length of service, the first benefit of Kramonnati fell due with effect from 01/04/2006 onwards and likewise the benefit of the second Kramonnati fell due w.e.f. 26/04/2009 onwards which in spite of repeated requests being made to the respondents is not being released and therefore the present Writ Petition has been filed for necessary orders to be passed at the earliest. 4.

He further contended that, in spite of repeated efforts being made, though no decision being taken, but it is also a case where they have till date not refused the petitioner's entitlement for the same. He further drew the attention of this Court to the document Ex-P/2 dated 12/05/2017 which is a correspondence made by the Executive Engineer making due recommendation for the said benefit to the petitioner. 5.

On the said averment made by the counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel submits that, since the respondents have till date not finally taken a decision, let the respondents be directed to decide the matter at the earliest. 6.

Given the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the either side, this Court is of the opinion that, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the Writ Petition pending.

7.

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.4 to take a decision immediately on the claim of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8.

Needless to mention that, the respondents should also ensure that after passing of the order, necessary compliance should also be done at the earliest.

9.

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE