Smt. Pramila Bharti Vs The Secretary

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 920 of 2023

¶6

1 - Smt. Pramila Bharti W/o Late Dhata Bharti, Aged About 55 Years R/o Kalibadi, Raipur P.S. City Kotwali Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶13

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 :- Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶14

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

08.01.2026

¶17

The present petition is being filed as the petitioner’s husband, late Dhata Bharti, appointed as a permanent Sweeper on 04.04.1984

¶18

2

¶19

in the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, died in harness on 08.05.2008, yet the respondents have failed to release his lawful retiral benefits. Despite repeated assurances, GPF, gratuity and pension/family pension have not been paid. Upon issuance of a legal notice, the respondents for the first time took a contradictory stand that the deceased was not a permanent employee and was a CPF member, without settling any dues.

¶20

Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-

¶21

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioners.

¶22

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No. 2 to provide G.P.F. gratuity and the pension/ family pension with arrears.

¶23

10.3 the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and Cost of the petition may also be granted.”

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that that the petitioner’s husband, Late Dhata Bharti, was appointed as a permanent Sweeper in the Municipal Corporation, Raipur on 04.04.1984 and unfortunately died while in service on 08.05.2008, as evident from the service book (Annexure P/1). Despite his death in harness, the respondents failed to release the GPF, gratuity, pension and/or

¶25

3

¶26

family pension to the petitioner on the pretext that certain proceedings were pending. The petitioner was repeatedly given only assurances, and upon issuance of a legal notice to respondent No. 2, the respondents for the first time took a stand that the petitioner’s husband was not a permanent employee but was working under a contractor (Annexure P/2). Subsequently, the authorities replied stating that the petitioner’s husband was a member of the C.P.F. and, on that basis, denied entitlement to pensionary benefits, thereby giving rise to the present petition.

¶27

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the memorandum dated 08.12.2010 issued by respondent No.2–Municipal Corporation, Raipur, it is evident that the pension scheme introduced w.e.f. 28.12.2010 was expressly made prospective in operation. The said memorandum categorically stipulates that the benefit of pension shall not be extended to employees who had retired prior to the issuance of the order or to deceased employees who had died before the said date. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner expired on 08.05.2008 , i.e., much prior to the coming into force of the pension scheme. Therefore, notwithstanding the submissions made regarding the alleged option exercised by the deceased employee, the petitioner cannot claim extension of pensionary benefits under the scheme in question.

¶28

4

¶29