Mathura Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1311 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                       NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        Writ Petition (S) No. 1694 of 2022

      Mathura Prasad S/o Shri Nohar Say, Aged About 65 Years Resident
      Of Village - Barbaspur, Post - Tuman, Tahsil - Podi Uproada, District
      - Korba, Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

   1. State      Of   Chhattisgarh   Through   -   The   Secretary,   (Resham
      Department) Rural Industries Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
      Nagar, District New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. The Director, Directorate Of Rural Industries, (Resham Department)
      Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Block - 1, 4th Floor, Atal Nagar,
      District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

   3. Assistant Director (Resham) Kosabadi Parisar Korba, District Korba
      Chhattisgarh

   4. Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District -
      Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Ms. Varsha Sharma & Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocates For State : Mr. Ali Asgar, Dy. A.G.

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 his 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 his initial appointment

is concerned and on due verification his 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