1 2026:CGHC:7919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1709 of 2026 Daiman Singh S/o Late Narayan Singh Aged About 66 Years R/o Bazarpara Village- Tokapal Tahsil - Tokapal District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Bastar Division Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) 4 - District Treasury Officer Treasury Accounts And Pension Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Tokapal District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU ORDER ON BOARD 12.02.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith issue the Pension Payment Order (PPO) in favour of the petitioner and release all pensionary benefits, including arrears from the date of PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 retirement i.e. 30.04.2021, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay exemplary costs to the petitioner for the undue delay and hardship caused. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired from service on 30.04.2021 from the post of Watchmen (Chowkidar), however, he is not being paid pension. Aggrieved with which the petitioner has made several oral request to the respondent No. 5 and when no heed was given to his oral request, he submitted representation on 12.09.2025 which is pending consideration. He submits that in the facts of the case, direction may be issued to respondent No. 5 to take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner at the earliest. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the grievance of the petitioner is against the respondent No. 5 for whom she is not appearing. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition. 5. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of grievance raised by the petitioner, instead of keeping the petition pending and seeking reply of the respondents, I find it appropriate to dispose this writ petition at this stage permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before Respondents No. 5 and in turn the concerned authorities shall consider and decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 3 months from the date of receipt of representation. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh