Smt. Siyarmati vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1310 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                       NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        Writ Petition (S) No. 1698 of 2022

      Smt. Siyarmati D/o Gujuram, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Post Barpali
      Dhogribhata, Barpali, District- Korba (C.G.)

                                                                ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Public Works
      Department Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
      District Raipur (C.G.)

   2. The    Engineer-In-Chief,      Public   Works   Department   Mantralay,
      Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

   3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department Division, Bilaspur, District-
      Bilaspur (C.G.)

   4. Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department Division, Bilaspur
      District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

   5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division-
      Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)

   6. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Korba Division
      District- Korba (C.G.)

   7. Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District-
      Bilaspur (C.G.)

                                                             ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Ms. Varsha Sharma & Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocates For State : Mr. Ishan Verma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 14.03.2022

1. Petitioner in the present Writ Petition seeks for an appropriate

direction to Respondents to consider her claim for grant of arrears on

salary and also for grant of pensionary benefits, gratuity and leave

encashment.

2. Claim of Petitioner seems to be on the basis of the Chhattisgarh

(Worked Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules,

1979. Claim of Petitioner also seems to be in the light of the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ram Naresh

Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray" [2017(3) SCC 436].

3. From perusal of pleadings in the Writ Petition, it is not reflected as to

whether the initial engagement of Petitioner was under the

Contingency establishment or not, so as to bring the services within

the purview of the aforesaid Rules of 1979.

4. However, considering the fact that Petitioner was a low paid

employee, the present Writ Petition at this juncture is disposed of

directing the Respondents to consider the claim of Petitioner after due

verification of the status of Petitioner so far as her initial appointment

is concerned and on due verification her claim for gratuity, leave

encashment and also pensionary benefits be considered and decided

at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months from the date

of receipt of copy of this Order.

5. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

                                                                  (P. Sam Koshy)
Khatai                                                                Judge