Smt. Mungamati Patel Vs Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:17828

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 9048 of 2023

¶7

1 - Smt. Mungamati Patel W/o Late Shri Jalandhar Patel Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Kawataal, Police Station - Seepat, Tahsil - Seepat, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through - Managing Director Old Police Head Quarter Premises, Rajbhawan Road, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate.

¶12

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

20/04/2026

¶15

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶16

reliefs:-

¶17

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the

¶18

record pursuant to the case of petitioner.

¶19

2

¶20

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to count petitioner's seniority from the date of appointment i.e. 13/01/1996 for the purpose of calculation of pension and other retiral dues.

¶21

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to calculate the pay scale from his initial date of appointment and pay the arrears, with 18% interest.

¶22

10.4 Any other relief, which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is not challenging any specific order passed by the respondent authority; rather, he assails the arbitrary and high-handed action of the authority in failing to reckon his seniority from the initial date of his appointment. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on a permanent and vacant post with the erstwhile MPSRTC on 13.01.1996, and his service record has remained satisfactory throughout, with no adverse remarks or stigma attached to his conduct. He continued to serve under the respondent organization, including during its transition to CIDC, and remained

¶24

in continuous employment from 13.01.1996 until his superannuation on 30.04.2023. However, the respondent authority has erroneously computed the petitioner’s seniority only from

¶25

3

¶26

27.10.2007, i.e., the date of the Industrial Court’s order, and has consequently failed to calculate his retiral benefits by taking into account his entire length of service from the original date of appointment, namely 13.01.1996.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as present petition is concerned some amount has already been granted to the petitioner but so far as relief which was sought by the petitioner from the initial date of appointment the benefits is required to be granted. He further submits that he may be allowed to make a representation before the concerned respondent authorities and the concerned respondent authorities may be directed to decide the representation in accordance with law.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the aforesaid submissions with vehemence, contending that the arguments advanced by the petitioner are devoid of merit and are not sustainable either in law or on facts, and has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the claim raised by the petitioner.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

Considering the submissions made by the parties, the petitioner is directed to file a representation raising all his grievances before the authorities concerned within a period of two weeks and, in turn, the concerned authorities are directed to decide the said representation within a period of four weeks, in accordance with

¶31

4

¶32

law.

¶33