Mahendra Ram Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1322 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WA No. 391 of 2019
Mahendra Ram Yadav S/o Sechan Yadav Aged About 62 Years R/o Qtr.
No. 421/1-K, Ravishankar Sukla Nagar, Dadar Road, Korba, District
Korba Chhattisgarh.
                                                               ---- Appellant
                                   Versus
1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Excise Department,
     Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2.   In-Charge Assistant Excise Commissioner Korba, District Korba
     Chhattisgarh.
3.   District Excise Officer District Korba Chhattisgarh.
4.   District Excise Officer Korea, District Korea Chhattisgarh.
                                                          ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mrs. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

14.03.2022

Heard Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mrs. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for

the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 13.05.2019

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.6131 of 2017,

whereby, the learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order of

compulsory retirement of the appellant, who was a Constable, dated

06.11.2017, declined to grant monetary benefits for the intervening period

from 06.11.2017 till the date of reinstatement.

3. The appellant was reinstated in service on 11.06.2019.

4. This appeal is directed only to the limited extent of non-granting of

monetary benefits as noted herein-above.

5. Mr. V. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as

Mrs. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the

respondents, submit that this case is squarely covered by judgment of

this Court dated 24.01.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No.531 of 2019

(M. M. Chaturvedi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ) and that this writ

appeal may be allowed directing that the appellant will be entitled to full

pay and allowances for the intervening period from 06.11.2017 to

11.06.2019.

6. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2022 would go to show

that this Court had relied upon Rule 54-A (1) and (3) of the Fundamental

Rules, 1956, dealing with a situation where compulsory retirement of a

Government Servant is set aside by the Court on merits.

7. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties

that this case is squarely covered by judgment of this Court dated

24.01.2022 in M. M. Chaturvedi (supra), the order of the learned Single

Judge, to the limited extent of denying monetary benefits for the

intervening period from 06.11.2017 to 11.06.2019 deserves to be and is

hereby modified and it is directed that the appellant will be entitled to the

monetary benefits for the aforesaid period, to which he would have been

entitled to, had he not been compulsory retired.

8. The writ appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No cost.

                        Sd/-                                        Sd/-
               (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Gautam Chourdiya)
                    Chief Justice                                 Judge

Anu