RAHIM AND ANR. Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner came to be engaged as daily wager and subsequently, his services came to be converted from daily wager to regular establishment w.e.f. 07.06.1984 as Work Supervisor. It is further contended that time bound promotionswere also granted to the petitioner. It is also contended that at the time of superannuation on 302014, petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs.5500-8000 (pre-revised). It is also contended that respondents No.1 to 4 recommended the case of the petitioner for settlement of pensionary and other retiral benefit according to last pay received by the petitioner, but, respondent No.5 instead of settling the pension of the petitioner and other retiral benefits according to the last pay received by him settled the same on a lower pay scale without taking into consideration the last pay drawn by the petitioner.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that case for settlement of pensionary benefits though was recommended by the competent authority, but is not being settled by respondent No.5, thereby depriving him and his family of their right to get the only source of sustenance.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner stated at the Bar that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the writ petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondents, particularly, respondent No.5 to settle the pension case of the petitioner within certain timeframe, having regard to the judgments rendered in SWP No. 2178/2015, SWP No. 1129/2010, SWP No. 988/2011 and SWP No. 2059/2017.