i'n.^ •M isa ^.^l </L^ s IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l ^:^^ K WRIT PETITION N0. 5S/^\ /2004 PETITIONER -.^' ...<^:'<^:" ^^y ^I..^"' ^ Mohammad Iqbal Ather, S/o.^ Shri Aziniulla Khan, Aged about 60 years, service, posted as Keeper, Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) R/o. Baijnath Para, Raipur (C.G) ^J ^7—^;i&i ;% ^<- VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, f Raipur (C.G.) •C^<\ON .-—-_:—'—-——- ^' (2. Executive Engineer, <^' E&M Division, Public Works Department Raipur (C.G.). T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF )AMUS, CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIQNS, ^ ,° M .^ c L< ^/..h- ^ ^^ ^ ^~~"~"& 3Z'^ ^. \'^.\ ••^< ^^x ^^ -^x^ ^ >^>.. ^/j^ "i ?f^ & ^ £ S g j I § ^ i 8 IIs ^ ® e? § t ^. ^ 1j^ ^. ^i^ ^^a ^M^ '^ss ^Q ^ L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARIi AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3524 of2004 PETITIONER : Mohanumd Iqbal Ather. VER8U8 RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & another. WRIT PETiriON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSlTrUTION OF IND1A SBLllon'Me Shri Satish K. Agmhotn, J. Present: Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Slmdhar, Panel Lowyer forthe State/respondents. ORDER CORAL) (Passed on 01st day of April, 2010) I.A. No. 2183/2005, this is an application for taldng document on record. The application is ordered as prayed for. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioncr who was working as Time Keeper, may be treated as Class IV employee for the pmpose ofother service benefits like retirement at fhe age of62 years. It is turther the'case ofthe petitioner that other benefits ofClass IV employees are given to him but he is being treated as Class III employee. Accordingly, a writ may be issued to tlie respondents to allow the petitioner to retire at the age of62 yeai-s, treating hmi as Class IVepiployee. 2. On the other hand Slm Sliridhar, leamed Panel Lawyer appeariiig for the Statc/respondents submits that for all practical purposes, Time Keeper is a class III employee. If some benefits of class IV employee are given to the petitioner, fhat does not confer any status of Class IV employee upon the petitioner. Even other^ise, if an employee is appointed as Time Keeper in Class III category, admission to Class IV categoty at the instance of one employee is not permissible undcr the constitiitional scheme. Thus, the petitioner camiot be treated in any way "73 as Class IV employee for any purposes, even if he is getting other benefits which are normally granted to class IV employees. 3. The lurther contention ofthe petitioner is that iii case, the petitioner is treated as class III employee, he should be granted the benefits of class III employee, however, there is no specific gx'ound or prayer made in the petition and as such, submission ofthe petitioner on this issue cannot be considered and decide for want of specific prayer and grounds. The respondent may not be in a position to advert to the same. It is well settled principle of law that the respondents are not expected to reply more than what has been pleaded in the petition. 4. On pemsal, it is fbund that the letter dated 09.02.2004 (Annexure P/4) filed by the petitioner whereiii request was made by the then Secretary and a proposal was made by the then Secretary, General Administration Department to treat Time Keeper contingency employees as class IV employees. But on the said proposal, no decision has been taken and as sudi, the Court cannot direct the Govemment to take a policy decision with regai'd to service condition of an employee. The petitioner cn his request is granted libeily to agitate the issue, if so advised, belbre the appropriate autliority as it is for the State Govenmient to take a policy decision and pass appropriate orders. This Couil may not pass any such order directing the State authorities to treat wliich employee under which category. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed with the aforestated liberty. 6. Consequently, M(W)P No. 3074/2004 and 694/2005, are dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge