Allowed

Vijay Kumar Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jan 2017WPS/233/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge court allowed a writ petition filed by Vijay Kumar Nayak seeking pensionary benefits for service rendered under the Special Area Development Authority, Bhilai. The court disposed of the petition by relying on a previous common order dated 08.02.2016 which held that such service shall be considered for calculating length of service and pensionary benefits upon merger.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's service under SADA, Bhilai to be considered for calculating length of service and pensionary benefits in parity with WPS No. 4459/2014.

Vijay Kumar Nayak Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 233 of 2017

¶5

Vijay Kumar Nayak S/o Late Shri Pilaram Nayak, Aged About 62 Years R/o Block- H, Plot No.5, Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhavan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner Mr. Alok Tiwari,Advocate For State Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. Advocate General For Municipal Corporation Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.Sam Koshy

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

17.01.2017

¶16

The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has sought for a limited relief of a direction to the Respondents to consider the service rendered by the Petitioner under the Special Area Development Authority (Sada), Bhilai for granting pensionary benefits.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the lis involved in the present case has already been adjudicated upon by this Court in Writ Petitions decided by a common order dated 08.02.2016 in Writ

¶18

¶19

Petition (S) No. 4459/2014 and analogous Writ Petitions.

¶20

He further prays that the case of the Petitioner is also identically placed and therefore an order in parity may be passed in favor of the present Petitioner also.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order passed by the High Court has also been in due course of time acted and implemented upon.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further refers to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.06.2016 in a Writ Appeal No. 185/2016 which was the Writ Appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation challenging the order of the Writ Court passed by the Single Bench on 08.02.2016, wherein the Division Bench taking note of a memo issued by the State Government dated 16.05.2016 in compliance with the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the Single Judge, has dismissed the Petition.

¶23

These contentions put forth by the Counsel for the Petitioner are admitted by the Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation and also the same is also not disputed by the Counsel appearing for the State Government and both the Counsel for the Respondents accept that the present Petition can also be disposed off in terms of order passed by this Court in WPS No. 4459/2014 and analogous Writ Petitions decided on 08.02.2016 (Annexure - 4).

¶24

In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents, present Writ Petition is also disposed off in terms of order dated 08.02.2016 passed by this Court in WPS No. 4459/2014 and analogous Writ Petitions holding the service rendered by the Petitioner while working with the SADA, Bhilai which was

¶25

¶26

subsequently merged with Respondent No.3 to be considered for the purpose of calculating length of service as well as pensionary benefits.

¶27

The present Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(P. Sam Koshy)

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

kishore

Vijay Kumar Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sumitra Datta Vs Union Of India

Ravikant Dubey Vs Ranjana Dubey

Irfan Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Minor Sulendra Kumar Mandavi

Majnu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Vs Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur