Disposed

Bhagi Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2024WPS/4946/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired work-charged Labour employee sought pension under the MP Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979. The court disposed of the writ petition permitting him to make a representation to respondent No. 1, to be decided in accordance with law within 120 days.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to make representation before respondent No. 1; authority directed to decide it strictly in accordance with law preferably within 120 days.

Bhagi Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 2

2024:CGHC:33590

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4946 of 2015

¶5

Bhagi Ram S/o Shri Sukh Lal, Aged About 63 Years Retired As Labour, Sub Division No.1, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Director, Treasury, Accounts And Audit Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. AnupMajumdar, Advocate
For Respondents/ State	: Mr. Satish Gupta, G. A.

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶12

Judgment On Board

¶13

02/09/2024

¶14

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Labour on 03.11.1981 in the Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon and his services were regularized in the work-charged establishment vide order dated 20.08.2008. He argues that petitioner got retired from service on 30.09.2014. He contends that petitioner worked under the respondents against sanctioned post on pay-scale of Rs. 2610-60-3150-65-3540/- for a considerable period, therefore he is

¶15

2 / 2

¶16

entitled to get pension according to the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. He prays that petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No. 1 raising all his grievances and the authority concerned, in turn shall be directed to decide the same in objective manner within stipulated time.

¶17

2. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He submits that petitioner was appointed as a work-charged employee and he was not appointed on a pensionable post, therefore, he is not entitled to get pension.

¶18

3. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the limited grievance raised by Mr. Majumdar, present petition is disposed of granting liberty in favor of petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 1, who in turn is directed to decide the same strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶19

4. With the aforesaid observation(s) & direction(s), present petition stands disposed of .

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶22

Ajinkya

Bhagi Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagi Ram 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

Manisha Mandavi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Netam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Leela Sonteke Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhagirathi Nishad Vs General Manager Secl and Ors.

Shri Sidharth Das (Died) Through LRs. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Koshle Vs State of Chhattisgarh