Disposed

Smt.veena Pahare And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jul 2014WPS/3173/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition by two Constables seeks enforcement of benefits previously granted to similarly placed employees. The Court directed the respondent to examine their representations within one month and pass necessary orders within two months if eligibility is confirmed, allowing fresh approach if adverse.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authority to scrutinize petitioners' case within one month and pass orders on merits within two months.

Smt.veena Pahare And Anr. Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILASPUR ‘3\ ?f3 w. P. (S) No. OF 2014. r

¶2

PETITIONERS :1.

¶3

"<br>& y
2.

¶4

Smt. Veena Pahare W/o. Shri Santosh Pahare, D/o. Shri Ramsahay Khandey, aged about31years, V Occupation^— Constable (M)

¶5

Smt. Suman Choudhary, W/ o. Shri Ved Prakash Choudhary, D/o. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary, aged — about 3Q years,^Occupation ./ Constable (M)

¶6

Both are working in the office of Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, Civil and Revenue District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary,

¶9

Department of Home Affairs, Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

The Secretary, Finance

¶11

Mahanadi Bhawan, New

¶12

Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

The Director^{GeneralofPolice,} Police^Head Quarter,^Raipur (co)

¶14

Superintendent^ofPolice, Mungeli,^{DistrictMungeli(C.G.)}

¶15

WRIT PETITION^{UNDERARTICLE226OFTHE} CONSTITUTION^{OFINDIA,FORTHEISSUANCE} OF DIRECTION {SI^ORORDER1S1

¶16

lmi

¶17

HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARH} : BILASPUR W.P. (S) No.3173^of2014 Smt. Veena Pahare^andanother

¶18

PETITIONER

¶19

Versus

¶20

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh^&others

¶21

Single Bench:^{Hon'bleShriJusticeManindraMohanShrivastava}

¶22

Present^:— Shri lndrasen^{Sahu,counselforthe} petitioners. Shri Umakant^{Pandey,P.L.fortheState.}

¶23

ORAL ORDER (Passed^on11/7/2014)

¶24

Heard Iearned^{counselforthe} parties.

¶25

Learned counsel^forthe petitioners^{wouldsubmitthatthepetitioners} are working as^Constable (M).^Their grievance^{isthatdespiteorder} passed^{bythisCourtinW.P.No.4653/2006andtheorderpassedby} Division Bench^{on23—02—2011} in W.A. No.426/2011 against which the Supreme^{CourthasdismissedS.L.P.} (Civil)^{No.13274/2013vide} order dated 29-07—2013, the benefits made admissible to the similarly placed persons^{videorderAnnexureP-1} issued by Home Department has been extended to the petitioners. He would not submit that the Director General of Police has already issued communication on 28.09.2013^forextending similar benefits to all the similarly placed persons,^but yet^{necessaryordershavenotbeen} passed,

¶26

Learned State counsel would submit that in the event petitioners submit fresh representation before the competent authority, their cases shalt^{bescrutinizedand} if after due verification if it is found that their^{casesaresimilar,theyshallbeentitledtoallsuchbenefits} available to^{theminaccordancewithlaw.}

i .V

”,

is disposed^{ofwithadirectionthatin}

¶33

1. in View^oftheabove, petition the event petitioners submit fresh representation before the competent authority ciaiming similar treatment as has been extended^tothe previous^setof petitioners^{inwhosefavourAnnexure} P-1 has been passed,^withina period^{ofonemonthfromtoday,the} competent^{authorityshaiiscrutinizetheircaseand} if on verification it is found^thatthe petitioners^{areidenticaiiypiaced,necessaryorders} in this regard be passed in accordance with iaw within a further period^oftwomonths.

¶34

if any adverse^orderis passed^{againstthepetitioners,theywouldbe} at liberty^{tomoveafreshbeforethisCourt.} /

¶35

/^/

¶36

Sd/— iv^astava a^MohanSh" Man'mdr Judge

¶37

lér't

Smt.veena Pahare And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.veena Pahare And Anr. 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

Kailash Rajput Vs Regional Trasport Authority Raipur and Ors.

Smt. Chandrakanta Devi Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/s Ambachem Industries Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Shyam Kumar Dewangan And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

B.n.bande Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kamal Mani Patel Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.