1 2026:CGHC:19344 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5494 of 2022 * - Durga Shanker S/o Shri Ghansi Ram Aged About 63 Years Post - Retired Peon (Class IV Employees) Tribal Welfare Department, R/o Bailabazar, Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal And Scheduled Castes Development Department (Tribal Welfare Department) Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner, Department Of Tribal Development, Raipur, District Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector District Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to revise the pension of the petitioner and fix the pension in accordance to full salary to which petitioner is entitle to get. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give arrears of all other consequential benefits to which petitioner is entitle to get after retirement and other similarly placed employees were granted. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.29 19:55:47 +0530 2 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant Arrears of Leave Encashment (Avkash Nagdikaran) imposing suitable interest. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give the benefit of Group Insurance Scheme for which petitioner is entitle to get after retirement, since under the scheme premium was taken so that a employee could get a lump-sum payment to augment their resources on retirement. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give DPF amount to the petitioner (Amount of Provident Fund Account of group D employees). 10.6 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to revise the Pension of the petitioner since he is entitle to get pension amount above Rs23000/- whereas due to wrong assessment he is paid only Rs15000/-. 10.7 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay compensation for undue suffering of the petitioner. 10.8 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give entire salary to the petitioner from year 1992-2008 for the period he was wrongly restrained from performing duty for about 26 years, on the basis of false and fabricated allegation when he was discharged from all the charges leveled against him. 10.9 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant entire salary of the year 2008 also which was not given even after his reinstatement in job. 10.10 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. Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Peon pursuant to order dated 08.06.1983 passed by the Director, Bastar Adivasi Vikash Pradhikaran. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 11.05.2009 and said 3 order was challenged in WPS No. 2710/2009. He would further contend that the order of termination was set aside vide order dated 28.09.2018. It is argued that the petitioner approached the respondent authorities, but he was not permitted to join the services and he got retired from services on account of superannuation on 18.07.2021. He would submit that the respondents have settled the retiral dues of the petitioner, but fixed monthly pension to the tune of Rs.15,850/- per month without dearness allowance. He would contend that the pension of the petitioner was fixed on 29.10.2021, but till date dearness allowance admissible has not been added to the amount of monthly pension. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to grant dearness allowance on monthly pension. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the Office of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bastar Division has fixed basic monthly pension payable to the petitioner and he would be entitled to receive said amount alongwith dearness allowance. He would contend that the petitioner has not placed a single document to demonstrate that admissible dearness allowance is not being paid. He would further contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has claimed admissible dearness allowance on amount of pension fixed by Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and 4 Pension, Bastar Division. In the entire petition, a single document has not been placed to substantiate that the petitioner is not receiving admissible dearness allowance. Document dated 29.10.2021 would reveal that the pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.15,850/- per month. In absence of relevant document, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is not receiving dearness allowance on amount of monthly pension, therefore, the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the competent authority raising his grievance, if subsists. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti