Kalyan Prasad Dwivedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

¶3

2024:CGHC:34319

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2414 of 2014

¶7

1 - Kalyan Prasad Dwivedi S/o Lt Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 66 Years Retd Revenue Inspector, Present R/o Village Khaira, Post Office Gauradah, Ps And Tah Rampur, District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Rakhi, Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Joint Collector, R/o Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Land Acquisition Officer, Hasdeo Bango Project, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - The Commissioner Land Record, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner	: Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents/State	: Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, P.L.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

04.09.2024

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶20

2

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notices to the respondents, returnable within early date of hearing.

¶22

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned memo/ order dated 26.12.2013 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.3;

¶23

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for grant of incentive amount of Rs.1,55,384/- to the petitioner with interest within stipulated period;

¶24

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ or writs/ order or orders/ direction or directions which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was posted to the post of Revenue Inspector in the Revenue Department, completed many Land Acquisition matters during his service tenure and retired from the services on 31.01.2007. He further submitted that a circular was issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh dated 02.07.1991 wherein all Commissioners and Collectors were directed to grant incentives to Land Acquisition Officers and other Revenue Officers, who successfully completed land acquisition matters. He also submitted that according to this circular, the amount of incentive would be 2% of the amount of award or special salary equal to 6 months, whichever is less. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after retirement, the petitioner moved a representation before the respondent authorities for payment of incentive according to the circular dated 2.7.1991 but when no

¶26

3

¶27

action was taken, the petitioner filed WP(S) No. 2195 of 2013, which was disposed of on 31.07.2013 directing the Collector concerned to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months. He further argued that the representation of the petitioner was disposed of with the observation that the incentive had already been paid to the petitioner prior to his retirement. He also argued that according to the calculation of the petitioner, he is entitled to get Rs.1,55,384/- in addition to the amount already paid to him. He stated that the respondent authorities may be directed to make payment.

¶28

1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She submitted that the incentive amount as per the circular dated 02.07.1991 has already been paid to the petitioner. She further submitted that the petitioner was entitled to get special pay of Rs.125/- per month up to a maximum of 6 months or 2% of the amount of award, whichever is less. She also submitted that the petitioner was entitled to get Rs.7,625/- whereas the amount of Rs.2,69,743/- has been paid. She stated that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶30

1. As per the circular dated 02.07.1991, the Revenue Inspector would be entitled to get a special salary of six months or 2% of the amount of award, whichever is less. The petitioner was entitled to get a special salary of 6 months that would come to

¶31

4

¶32

the tune of Rs.7,625/- whereas he has been paid Rs. 2,69,743/-

¶33

which is higher than the six months salary.

¶34

1. Taking into consideration the above discussion and calculation, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. It is made clear that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner on the foundation of observations made in this order.

¶35

7 ) Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

Nimmi

Kalyan Prasad Dwivedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyan Prasad Dwivedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savita Katle Vs Janpad Panchayat, Lormi

Khushboo Singh Thakur @ Manogya Singh Thakur Vs Pitambar Singh

Ritesh Kumar Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

M/S Golchha Promoters Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. G.v.j. Rao Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.

Janak Kumar Dhake Vs State Bank Of India And Ors.