SATYA VRAT PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :-

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1971 as Sub-Engineer in the respondent department and was posted at Multai, District Betul (M.P.). Thereafter, in the year 1975, he was transferred to Rajnandgaon and was posted at various places and ultimately on bifurcation of the state of Madhya Pradesh, retained and allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted vide order dtd. 22/10/2005 to the post of Assistant Engineer. Since then the petitioner continued to work on the said post. On 2/03/2006, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Rural Engineering Services ( for short 'RES') under the Respondent No. 2. Thereafter vide order dtd. 28/10/2006, he was posted under the Project Implementation Unit-II Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna (for short 'PMGSY') at Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon. Pursuant to the order of deputation and posting the petitioner submitted his joining on 17/01/2007. Since the petitioner was at the fag end of his service career, therefore, as per rule 57 the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Pension Rules 1976, he made a representation for repatriation of his services to the Water Resources Department vide application dtd.. 09/01/2008. Thereafter, again on 23/06/2009, 8/01/2010 17/05/2010, the petitioner made representations for repatriating his services back to the parent department stating specifically that his retiral benefits and pension case will not be finalized on account of delay in repatriation. The petitioner was repatriated back to his parent department vide order dtd. 01/06/2010 but he was not relieved by the Respondent No. 2 to join his services in the parent department. Ultimately, he was relieved vide order dtd. 30/06/2010. Pursuant to the repatriation order and the order of relieving, the petitioner submitted his joining in the parent department on the same day i.e on 30/06/2010. On repatriation and submission of his joining, the Respondent No. 3 accepted his joining and was allowed to retire vide order dtd. 30/06/2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. Pursuant to the retirement of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 issued direction to the Respondent No. 4 for finalization of the pension case and payment of retiral dues. The service book of the petitioner was also sent along-with the letter dt. 6/08/2010 for necessary action. According to the petitioner, despite directions issued by the Respondent No. 3, the pension case and the payment of retiral dues were delayed by about one year and finally, the payment of pending dues were made on 6/6/2011 i.e after about one year of retirement without paying any interest on the same.

(3.) According to the petitioner, since the pension case of the petitioner was not finalized and on account of financial hardships, the petitioner submitted various representations to the authorities for finalizing the same at the earliest but even after repeated request and despite best efforts the pension case and the payment of retiral dues could be finalized after a lapse of one year, as such the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest on the amount paid to him after one year from the date the same has fallen due.