1 2025:CGHC:49510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8239 of 2019 M. R. Lahre S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Lahre Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Shivmani House, Devendra Nagar, Ameri Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Project Administrator Intigrated Tribal Development Project Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Tamnar, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Sub-Treasury Officer Gharghoda, District-Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.10.06 16:02:17 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 : Shri Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 06/10/2025 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking recomputation of pension, release of withheld one increment by fixing the pay of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.69,200/- and also to grant arrears of pension. 2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat and was superannuated on 30.11.2016. He submits that while the petitioner was working as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and vide order dated 26.11.2015, Respondent No.2 imposed punishment of withholding two increments with non-cumulative effect. Against the said order, an Appeal was filed by the petitioner which was partly allowed and the punishment was reduced to withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect. However, at the time of computation of pension, the petitioner’s withheld increment was not included. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation raising his grievances before the 3 concerned Authority of the respondents and the concerned Authority may be directed to decide the said representation within a stipulated period of time. 3. Learned State counsel would not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 4. Having considered the submissions and particularly considering the only limited grievance of the petitioner that though an order has already been passed in his favour in the departmental appeal on 06.10.2016 and further, a payment sanction order has also been passed by Respondent No.4 on 31.08.2017 for the payment of arrears to the tune of Rs.1,54,446/-, but the same has not been paid to the petitioner, it is directed that if the petitioner files a fresh representation before the competent Authority in this regard, the said Authority shall consider and decide the said representation and also clear the dues, if any, in favour of the concerned employee within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the said representation, in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash