1 / 2 2026:CGHC:5188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1165 of 2026 • Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Shiv Prasad Sharma Aged About 73 Years R/o B-12 Shriram Nagar Phase - 1 Vip Road Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh Enviorment Conservation Board Through Its Member Secretary Paryavas Bhavan, North Block Sector - 19, Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 492002 2. Employ Provident Fund Organization (Ministry Of Labour And Employment Govt Of India) Through It Commissioner Regional Office Block D Scheme No. 32, Igv. Parisar Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Employ Provident Fund Organization (Ministry Of Labour And Employment Govt Of India) Through Its Assistant Commissioner Regional Office Block D Scheme No. 32, Igv. Parisar Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 30/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner Higher Pension Grievance From the Respondent no 2 department. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus directing respondent no 2 to 3 to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 16/01/2026 (Annexure P/1) accordance with law within a specific time frame period and PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 grant the higher pension of the petitioner from the period of February 2022. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner stood retire from the office of Respondent No.1 while working on the post of Chief Engineer in the year 2013. He submits that following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of EPFO and another vs. Sunil Kumar B. and others in SLP(C) No. 8658-8659/2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the employees who were retired prior to 2013 will also be entitled for higher pension. He submits that petitioner submitted representation raising his grievance as raised in this writ petition before Respondents No. 2 & 3, however, till date representation submitted by petitioner has not been considered and decided. Therefore, direction be issued to Respondents No. 2 & 3 to take decision on the pending representation at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 though disputed some portion of the arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioner, he however submits that in view of limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner for taking decision on the pending representation, he is having no objection. 4. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the parties, considering the nature grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, petitioner has already submitted comprehensive representation before Respondents No. 2 & 3 which till date is pending consideration, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage, directing Respondents No. 2 & 3 to take decision on the representation submitted by petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 03 months from the date of receipt of order passed by this court. 5. Petitioner is also at liberty to submit fresh representation, if he so desires. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE