'?: ?f ..ff ../• -> BE?ORE THB HON'BLE STATE ADECTNISTRATIVE TRIBUNfiL BENCH RAIPUR tXlflC^'^&Q^lcS O.A. HQ-. ./200 Appllcant r"f "f^-"*•r.T-o—T V <l- fmi i^gfstfsr. A». fl. iiiti .i»'m. Triliuaal, InauKiuklal p4' W. Noa-appllcants Nand Kishore Shrivastavl aged 63 years s/o Lata | Reti.red Asstt .Taacher, iEfimary Sahool E&nlya Jpb,Biock-Dongargerh Dlstt. Rajnandgaon. v/s. ^J-T 3'he State of Ghhattisgarh Through ; Ttie Secretary School Education Department Secretarlste,. (Old D.K.HOspltal) RAIPUR (C.G.) ^ Dlstt. Educatlon Offleer najnan<agaon (c .G.) . 3^ BlockEducatlon Offlcer, . Dongargaeh,01stt.Rajnandgaon (c.G.) Appllcatlon U/s 19 of the Sfcate Adminlstratlve Act 1985. H .i!>!?°^~ ':^t--. 'vv''; ^^\..^-^ -^•XLiic-n. '"Rf^i^/ •;^.sc~ff ;^^p t\L- •Dl^l ^H Killqt <til_^| *-4iqi yfifl lte Tumer ^ ./^ ^"',. 's. T 'rsg -<<l<ll<'l'i|, 8>n1'M<i<o. (qcii'My iiiwraiiich 3TRt?T 'WSR W^P.IC)KM^% oS' "WI, 200 ^s^ss' an^r ^gigr ^ifer SB : Hon'ble Shrt Manlndra Mohan St q'>l<ll<n<ll*1 *11H<flf'^ fel<il '^1¥<TR ^; sipgir aii^r rivastawa.J. 23.03.2010: Shri Somkant Verma, counsel Wf ttie petlttoner. Shri Bhaskar Payadii, Panel La|»ywtor the Statefrespondente. With the consent of teamed coujisel for the parties, the petBon Is heard flnally. Thls pettton has been filed Leamed counsel for the petlti^ order dated 31-08-1998, Ihe petltlonert] by the peUUoner aggrieved by order dated 22-04-1998 (Annexure A-1), by whteh( petttoner was ordered to be retlred w.e.f. 30-09-1998 upon comptetlng age of 60 fears. ner submlts that In vlew of Uie governnwnt 'as entttled to contmue h servtce asthe age ot retirement was enhanced from 60 (B|62 year. He submits ttiat he is enUted to payment of all emoluments & pension|ary beneflts freating fhe petWoner as having conUnued h servlce tllt he wtlred, com|>lethg the age of superannuatton treating hls age of retrement is 62 years. On B)e other hand, tearned Spte counsel submlts that th®petittoner was entiBed to cpntinue inServtee unBI coflnpletlon of 62 years of age and he has been rettred on 30-09-2000. It is however ^ubmltbed that tt»peUttoner is not entUed for getthg flnancial beneflts because of at>pllcatlon ctt princlpte of "No work No pay" as the petittoner was never slncere towaid^ his duBes. In ttie petlton, no speciflc plea|dhgs have been mErie by the prilttoner. The date on whfch petition was flted, orderjof conBnulng in servlce and reUrhg hlm upon compldton of 62 years of age, wasjalready iaswd. Even no details have been submltted by the respondenls atong vtlth retum. In thls vtew of the mattBr, It te not possibte (or thte Court to decide, und^r what cireumstances the petUoner has been deprived of dues. In so ter as pensio^iaiy bene'flls of the petittoner are concemed, respondents are duty bound todec|ide penstonary beneffis treatlng hls age of superannuatton as 62 yeare. With the aforesakt drectton, ttie petlton stands disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastaya Judge •y- [Tft^ ^tgS^