1 2025:CGHC:60396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7777 of 2022 1 - Smt. Dulari Bai Pateva W/o Late Purshottam Singh Pateva Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Parsoda, Post Jamgaon B, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Kacchar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintending Engineer Water Resources And Ground Water Survey Circle Civil Line Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur, Districr Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Kacchar Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Department , Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order On Board 11/12/2025 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition:- 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records from the office of the respondents in respect of petitioners claim. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant family pension, gratuity and all death cum retired benefit to petitioner from date of entitlement with interest. 2 10.3 That, any other writ, order directions or relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of the Late Purshottam Singh Pateve, who was working with the respondent as peon and died on 08/06/2011. Since she was not being paid the retiral dues, this writ petition has been filed. 3. A return on behalf of respondents has been filed, and it has been stated that, barring pension, the rest of the retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner. This fact is not disputed by counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that because of some objection raised, the family pension of the petitioner could not be started. The objection has now been considered, and the matter has been sent to respondent No.5 for further process. The return also indicates that the petitioner is entitled to family pension w.e.f 01.07.2011. Thus, it is directed that respondents shall start the pension within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and will pay all the arrears to her within the same period. If any grievance subsists, the petitioner may approach this Court again. 4. With this observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.12.15 11:15:00 +0530