Smt. Phulbai vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1435 Chatt

                                        -1-


                                                                               NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                         Writ Petition (S) No. 1800 of 2022

   1. Smt. Phulbai W/o Jageshwar Aged About 72 Years Residence Of Post
        Barpali Dhogribhata, Barpali District Korba Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department
        Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur
        Chhattisgarh.
   2.   The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Mantralay , Indrawati
        Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
   3.   Chief Engineer Public Works Department Division, Bilaspur District
        Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
   4.   Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Division Bilaspur
        District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
   5.   The Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department , Sub Division Korba
        District Korba Chhattisgarh.
   6.   Executive Engineer Public Works Department , Korba Division District
        Korba Chhattisgarh.
   7.   Joint Director Treasury , Account And Pension, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur
        Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

21.03.2022

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 difference of 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) Judge inder