Dismissed

Hidayat Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC17 Oct 2013WPS/1365/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench Oral Order dismissing a pension petition. The Court found the petitioner's petition substantially infructuous as his back wages were paid, and no case out for awarding interest due to no fault or negligence by authorities in delaying the pension case for five years.

What did the court decide?

Pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition, the plea for grant of interest on delayed pensionary benefits was declined.

Hidayat Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

\ ^^ .-•:^c^;.1»w"^'-"' ?.^'

¶3

HE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

W.P.S.No. /^^ /07

¶5

PETITIONER	•^' HidayatAli, S/oLateBasitAli, aged about66years RetiredPTI, Gulistane nrashns . KoniBilaspur(C.G.) VERSUS
RESPONDENTS ^^^Q^ <^^'' <^v ^^ ''•aa-.^^^sy '"";!?i&s%"?ss£^	^ 1. StateofC.G. Through Secretary, Departmentof Technical EducationRaipur(C.G.) 2. Director, Directorate of Teclmical Education, Department of Technical Education,BairanBazarRaipur(C.G.) 3. Director,Directorate of Clihattisgarh »yT»¥Asi^accoimtsand pension, Raipur (C.G.) a2i7 4. Joint DirectorTir^as-u-^y^ atu.^.afe and pension,Bilaspur(C.G.) 5. Principal Govt. Engineering College Kou,Bilaspur(C.G.)

PETITIONER

•^'
HidayatAli, S/oLateBasitAli, aged
about66years RetiredPTI, Gulistane
nrashns
. KoniBilaspur(C.G.)
VERSUS

RESPONDENTS
^^^Q^
<^^''
<^v
^^
''•aa-.^^^sy
'"";!?i&s%"?ss£^

^
1.
StateofC.G. Through Secretary,
Departmentof Technical
EducationRaipur(C.G.)
2.
Director,
Directorate
of
Teclmical
Education,
Department
of
Technical
Education,BairanBazarRaipur(C.G.)
3.
Director,Directorate of
Clihattisgarh
»yT»¥Asi^accoimtsand
pension, Raipur
(C.G.)
a2i7
4.
Joint
DirectorTir^as-u-^y^ atu.^.afe
and
pension,Bilaspur(C.G.)
5.
Principal
Govt.
Engineering
College
Kou,Bilaspur(C.G.)

¶6

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶7

The petitioner above named begs to submit as under.

¶8

¶9

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶11

W.P.(S)No. 1365 of 2007

¶12

PETITIONER Hidayat Ali.

¶13

Versus

¶14

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶15

Shri Neeraj Choubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶16

SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. ORAL ORDER (17/10/2013)

¶17

Petitioner retired as P.T.l. from Govt. Engineering College, Koni Bilaspur in April 2003. When his pension case was not finalized for about three years he preferred the present writ petition on 23/02/2007 for a direction to the respondents to release the pension, backwages and other consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum.

¶18

(2) lndispu*ably petitioner was recei'/ing anticipatory pension during the period till August 2008 when his pension case was finalized and the entire dues admissible to him has been paid. Thus the substantial part of the relief clairhed by thp petitioner has been rendered infructuous, however, the psiitioner is still pressing for grant of interest on the amount of pensionery benefits on submission that without there being any fault on his part, the pension case was not finalzed for five years, therefore, he is entitled for interest for the relevant period.

¶19

(3) On perusal of the return filed by the respondent-State in January, 2008 it would appear that there was dispute regarding applicability of increased pay scale to the P.T.I.s from Rs.2200-4000 to Rs. 8000 -13500 w.e.f. 01/01/1996. Since the said part of the dispute was with respect a period when the State of Chhattisgarh was not created i.e. for a period prior to 01/11/2000.the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh sought clarification from the State of Madhya -Pradesh vide letters dated 07/12/2007 and 17/12/2007 Annexures R/3 and R/4

¶20

VS.O

¶21

i<ssa^'sii>
& ¥1
^ ^9
w
,.-;^'

¶22

respectively. By annexure R/2 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 03/02/2001 / 04/05/2001 the said anomally regarding grant of higher pay scale to the P.T.I.s in accordance with recommendations of A.I.C.T.E. was resolved, however, since the said order has been issued after 01/1 1/2000 i.e. after formation of State of Chhattisgarh, the applicability thereof to the State of Chhattisgarh was also in dispute. Moreover, the petitioner appears to have retained the Government accommodatiqn and was enjoying the facility of incidental services even after retirement till his pension case was finalized.

¶23

(4) On the basis of the facts mentioned above, it does not appear that the respondents-authorities have deliberately or negligently failed to decide his pension case without anyjustification.

¶24

(5) No case for awarding interest for the delayed payment of pensionery benefits is made out. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. _

¶25

T^-

¶26

Sd//prashantKumarMishra

¶27

Hidayat Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hidayat Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dorilal Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi Vs C.G.Infrastructure Dev.Corp.and Anr.

Smt.Seema Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ku.Neelima Singh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Satyanarayan Mishra Vs State Govt.of Chhattisgarh And Ors.