1 2025:CGHC:16944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 780 of 2017 1 - Keshaw Ram Bhakta S/o Late Shri Vishal Ram Bhakta, Aged About 75 Years Post Retired Head Master, Department Of School Education, R/o Batena Ward, Behind Arjuni Police Station, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The President, Pension Dismanting Committee Pension Nirakaran Samiti, General Administration Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Accountant General, Through The Assistant Account Officer, Office Of The Accountant General, General Provident Fund Section, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.04.2025 REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order Dated 23/09/2015 issued by the Pension Dismantling Committee (Pension Nirakaran Samiti), General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Ministry, Mahanadi Bavan, New Raipur, C.G. 10.2 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to settle the entire legitimate claim of the petitioner from his General Provident Fund Account, Arrears of Salary, wrongly computed amount from his Final Payment Computation Sheet imposing suitable interest with in stipulated time frame. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay Rupees 59,608/- to the petitioner from his General Provident Fund Account, Arrears of salary and other dues which is still not paid to the petitioner & arrears of 5th pay Scale for which petitioner is entitle to get from 01 January 1996 were not paid to the petitioner till date. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents for correction of records, since the amount which was already deposited by the petitioner taken under temporary advance head was again deducted from his Part Final, mentioning it to be taken as Part Final from Final Payment Computation sheet due to these errors of the respondent's petitioner is unable to get his legitimate claim. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to decide all the pending representation of the petitioner with in stipulated time frame and make payment of expense for unnecessary litigation and compensation for undue suffering i.e. Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner. 10.6 That, any other Writ, order, directions or relief which the petitioner is entitle and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Dewangan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner got retired from the post of Head Master on 30.05.2004. He would further submit that the amount of GPF has not been settled finally by the department and arrears of 3 the 5th pay commission from 01.01.1996 to 01.01.2004 have also not been paid yet. He would contend that the petitioner has made a representation before respondents No.3 to 5 on 01.10.2015 but till date, the same has not been considered and decided. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Prajapati, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State and Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dewangan. 4. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Dewangan, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondents No.3 to 5 raising his grievances and in turn, the respondent authorities are directed to decide the representation so made by the petitioner preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha