1 2025:CGHC:12217 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5353 of 2024 1 - Milap Ram Sahu S/o Shri Jhadu Ram Sahu Aged About 63 Years Retired - Chowkidar, At Minimata Bango Canal Division No. 6, Nandeli Bhatha - Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.), R/o Ganjipara Ward No. 6, Jaijaipur Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resource Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Chief Engineer Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Pariyojna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Superitnendent Engineer Kelo Pariyojna, Canal Division Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Executive Engineer Minimata Bango Canal Division No. 6 Nandel Bhatha - Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.). 6 - Director Directorate, Pension And Provident Fund, Indravati Bhawan, Block-1, Third Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 7 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 8 - District Treasurer Officer District Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to settle and get immediate retirement benefits i.e. GPF, Leave encashment as well as pensionary benefits to the petitioner within prescribed time, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and 3 just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts of the case, is that, the writ petition is being preferred against in action on the part of the respondent authorities whereby they to make delay in payment of petitioner's retiral dues as well as pensionery benefit, who has retired on 31.03.2023, the respondent authorities instead of giving retiral dues payable to the petitioner sympathetically who has retired as class fourth low paid employee, but they are to the petitioner after retirement running one office to another office again and again, but the respondent authorities has neither given his dues to the petitioner as retiral dues nor still started his pension, therefore, the petitioner has many time orally as well as in written requested to his higher officer to release their retiral dues as well as pensionary benefit, whereas 6 months before his retirement to keep complete all proceeding regarding his retiral dues, therefore, not face any hurdle after the retirement, but after lapse of more than months of his retirement without any financial support he is being facing financial and domestic problem, whereas in that matter the State Government has issued specific direction to the department that before six months of retirement of the employee every documentary proceeding be completed so that the retired employee not suffered for any hardness after 4 retirement to running office to office, but with intention to harassing the petitioner making delay in payment of retiral dues as well as pensionary benefit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employee has been retired from his service then before six months prior completed all necessary proceeding to provide retiral benefit to the such Govt Employee, but in the matter of petitioner after retirement he is not paid his retiral dues & pension. He further submits that the petitioner is retired class IV employee, and due to health reason and not face to hardness after retirement to getting his retiral benefit earlier for settlement of his post retirement dues payable to the petitioner had approached the authorities to avoid unnecessary hardship towards the petitioner in the course of settlement of post retirement due. He further submits that the respondent authorities are intentionally wants to occur in delay to payment in retiral benefits as well as pension of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that with regard to fixation of pension the respondent No. 5 wrote a letter to the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur alongwith relevant documents on 08.06.2023, on which certain objections have been raised and directed after settlement of ERM submit proposal for pension. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 wrote a 5 letter to the respondent No. 7 for ERM sanction and to take necessary action for finalization of pension case of the petitioner. Thereafter, for finalization of pension and ERM sanction communications have been made with the respondent No. 7 and Director, Treasury-Accounts & Pension, Raipur as well. He further submits that there is likelihood that the petitioner will be granted pension within some short period. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Accordingly, respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order in respect of grant of pension to the petitioner as per averment stated in para 3 of the reply of the State. 7. This process can be done within a period of 60 days. 8. So far as leave encashment is concerned, learned counsel for the State fairly submits that after passing order in Faguvaram’s case issued can only be directed to be dealt with in accordance with Faguvaram’s case. 9. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat