Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ballam Singh Paraste vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

                                                              1
                            IN    THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                   ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 9737 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BALLAM SINGH PARASTE S/O LATE SHRI DHULIYA
                           PARASTE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           VOLUNTARY RETIRED PENCHYAT COORDINATION
                           OFFICER (P.C.) R/O H. NO. 58 VILLAGE GEEDA POST
                           KHARGEHNA DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI SACHIN PANDEY, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
                                 DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY ACCOUNTS AND
                                 PENSION    JABALPUR DIVISION JABALPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DINDORI DISTRICT
                                 DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    CHIEF ENGINEER OFFICER PANCHAYAT AND
                                 RURAL DEVELOPMENT MEHDWANI DINDORI
                                 DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SUBODH KATHAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India,

seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for pay fixation and to grant him pension accordingly.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has preferred representation before respondent authority for proper pay fixation and to calculate pension in light of judgment passed by this Court in the case of H. P. Parashar Vs. State of M.P and others, W.P No.1355/2014 dated 17.8.2017. It is submitted that representation of petitioner has not been considered and decided.

3. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submitted that decision in respect of said representation will be issued and same will be

intimated to petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed off with direction to respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in the case of H. P. Parashar (supra) by passing a reasonable and speaking order within a period of 90 days from receipt of certified copy of this order.

6. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the matter.

7. With aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off. C.C as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms