Disposed

Manharan Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2019WPS/5/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed a writ petition by directing the authorities to examine and extend pension benefits to retired contingent employees who later became regular, based on Lakhanram Sahu precedent, to be completed within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to examine and extend pension benefits to petitioners counting temporary services, to be completed within 3 months.

Manharan Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 5 of 2019

¶5

1. Manharan Lal S/o Late Bhaiya Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Agrahij S/o Shri Kheduram, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Village Konari, Post Pisegaon, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Directorate, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Through Its Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Through- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioners	: Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
For State	: Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.
For Municipal Corporation	: Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶15

07/01/2019

¶16

1. Heard.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who were contingency employee, later on became regular employee in the year 2008. Thereafter, they retired in the year 2009 and 2017 respectively. It is submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of

¶18

¶19

Lakhanram Sahu and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in Writ Appeal No. 281 of 2013 and batch of cases vide order dated 26-02-2015. The services rendered by the deceased employee as temporary employee to the date of regularization also entitled to be counted for the purpose of pension under pension rules of 1979.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though there is quarrel in certain legal position, for entitlement to pension appropriate verification of facts would be necessary and on the basis of the same petitioners claim for pension shall be examined and orders would be passed.

¶21

4. On the submissions made, the petition is disposed off with the direction to examine the petitioners' entitlement for pension in accordance with the decision in the case of Lakhanram Sahu and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and extend the benefit to petitioners. The exercise should be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE

¶23

Khatai

Manharan Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manharan Lal 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

Jaswant Kumar Sahu and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mohit Ram (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramanuj Choubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Saroj Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

R. S. Narmada @ Rajababu Singh Narmada Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Bhaskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh