Allowed

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Sept 2018WA/497/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appeal against the Single Judge's refusal to grant pension due to insufficient qualifying years. Considering a new notification dated 28.05.2018, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to competent authority for fresh consideration within three months.

Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Appeal No. 497 of 2018

¶5

{Arising out of order dated 17.01.2018 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 5710 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge}

¶6

Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Raruha Prasad Sharma, Aged About 69 Years Post Amin/ Patwari, R/o Kantikunj, Infront Of Shri Ram Health Club, Shanti Vihar Colony, Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Minsitry, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The Accountant General, Through The Assistant Account Officer, Office Of The Accountant General, General Provident Fund Section, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

The Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Near Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division No. 1 Raipur, (Near Kali Mandir), Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resource Sub Division No. 3 O.C.M. Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Appellant : Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice

¶19

28/09/2018

¶20

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned Government Advocate for the State/Respondents.

¶21

2. The order under appeal is dated 17.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge where he refused to give any direction in favour of the Appellant to

¶22

¶23

pay him pension since the number of qualifying years as a regular employee did not add up to 10 years.

¶24

3. It is not in dispute that the Appellant had worked for a long period of time as daily-wager and later on came to be regularised in the year 2003.

¶25

4. Be that as it may, keeping in view the new notification (Vitt Nirdesh 30/2018) dated 28.05.2018, the matter is required to be considered by the competent authority afresh. The impugned order dated 17.01.2018 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 5710 of 2017 is set aside. The matter is remanded back for an early decision, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶26

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

¶27

Sd/Sd/(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶28

Amit

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raipur Handling And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Dr.o.p.tiwari

Abhishek Makhija Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

S. N. Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maa Karma Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Girish Singh Patel Vs the State of Chhattisgarh