1 2025:CGHC:4298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4028 of 2024 Sita Sharan Sharma S/o. Baban Ram Aged About 61 Years R/o. House No. 6A, Saket Nagar, Balaji Hospital, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Central Industrial Security Force Through Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, LSTPP, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Assistant Commandant CISF Unit, LSTPP, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Commandant CISF Unit, KSTPP, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Sr. Accounts Officer RPAO, CISF, Kolkata, 3rd M.S.O. Building, DF Block, 2nd Floor, Saltlake City, Kolkata 700064. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 23.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Shweta Rai, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.25 15:27:26 +0530 2 2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the pension, gratuity, arrears, leave encashment and all other service benefits. 10.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding her interest.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner has joined the services in CISF on 19.03.1985 at Barwaha M.P and was allotted as the CISF No. 851120056 HC/COOK. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred at many places during his service tenure and due to being found guilty in departmental proceedings, was penalized with compulsory retirement on 01.02.2022. Then, the petitioner had sent an e-mail to DG seeking pension and other benefits after retirement, but in reply to the same, the respondent no. 3 has sent a letter to the petitioner dated 09.10.2023 whereby the respondent has informed that the clarification has been sought from higher authorities. Again on 28.11.2023, respondent No. 3 has sent a letter informing that the clarification is awaited and asked the petitioner to wait. Subsequently, the petitioner has sent an e-mail on 05.04.2024 seeking any update, yet again by the letter dated 09.04.2024, the respondents have stated that they have not received any clarification and as soon as they receive it, the same shall be forwarded to the 3 petitioner. On 19.06.2024, the respondent No. 4 has sent a letter to respondent No. 3 wherein it has been stated that CCS (Pension) Rules do not provide for any compromise with regard to family pension and have not properly dealt with the petitioners request because it is not the case of family pension, the petitioner is asking for his pensionary benefits. 4. Thereafter, on 24.06.2024, the respondent No. 3 has sent a letter to respondent No. 1 informing and forwarding the letter dated 19.06.2024 for further proceedings and then, respondent No.1 has sent a letter to the petitioner informing about the contents of the letter dated 19.06.2024 and but no fruitful order or even the final order is being passed with respect to the petitioner’s grievance. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities in withholding the pension of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and bad in law as in the clearance certificate, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is retired with full pensionary benefits. He further submits that respondent No. 4 has wrongly made an observation of CCS Conduct rules regarding the marriage and the family pension, as the violation of conduct Rules may come in way, if anyone else was seeking pension, but in the present case, the pension has been withheld on the wrong footing. It has been contended that though the petitioner 4 has been retired on 01.02.2022, but still, no single penny has been given to the petitioner in respect of his service. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is having two wives, as such, they are confusion as to whom the pension amount will go. He fairly submits that the respondent authorities will finalize the case of the petitioner with respect to grant of pension expeditiously. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as upon appreciating the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, since the matter relates to grant of pension to the petitioner as he stood retire on 01.02.2022, but not a single penny has been disbursed to the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in a pragmatic manner within a period of two months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the aforementioned observation/direction, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/ Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh