^^€-\^Tf IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.)No.- Whal. PETITIONER ^^i. ^..'•:yy^ ^>""' .wy \-\< .^y.^~ ^y'y" ''^. -' ^ RESPONDENTS 1) 2) 3) -/2011 Sudarshan Sharma aged about 61 years, S/o Shri Ram Prakash Sharma, Occupation Retired Senior Assistant C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam, Raipur (C.G.) R/o Namchand Gali No.3, Ganjpara Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary for Agnculture Department, Secretariat D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) The Chairman C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam, Raipur (C.G.), Head Quarter Beej Bhawan Ravigram Telibandha, G.E.Road Raipur (C.G.) The Managing Director C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam, Raipur (C.G.) Head Quarter Beej Bhawan Ravigram Telibandha, G.E.Road Raipur (C.G.) ^- 4) The Deputy General Manager C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam, Raipur (C.G.) Head Quarter Beej Bhawan Ravigram Telibandha, G.E. Road Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker PETITIONER Writ Petition (S\ No. 4149/2011 Sudarshan Sharma RESPONDENTS Versys State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, PL for the respondents/State. WRTI PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA ORDER (02.08.2011) Grievance of the petitioner herein is that he is a retired Senior Assistant of Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam, Raipur and retired from the office of respondent No.3. TKccording to the petitioner, though he retired after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, an indefinite strike was called by the employees' union regarding enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years which subsequently was called off on 30.4.2008 on the basis of an assurance given by Secretary, Agriculture Department and the Chairman (respondent No.2 herein) that efforts in that regard would be made by them. According to him, though he was superannuated on 30.4.2008, subsequently on 20.6.2008 he was appointed on contract basis for one year which was later renewed till 15.4.2010 with effect from 1.9.2009. According to the petitioner, his contract appointment should have been further extended but in an illegal manner his request to that effect has been turned down on 30.9.2010 vide Annexure P-7. It is also prayed by the petitioner that he is entitled —2-- for the loss of salary for four months and fifteen days and that the respondents should have honoured their words by allowing him to continue till the age of 60 years as per the agreement dated 30.4.2008. Petitioner has also prayed for the benefit of sixth pay commission with effect from 1 . 1.2006. According to the petitioner, as one N.C. Nikam was likely to be re-appointed, he is also entitled for the same benefit. 2. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that the petition is highly misconceived as he has clubbed number of jssues without there being any specific pleadings. She submits that if after strike of the employees some mutual agreement was entered Ihto between the department and the employees, merely on that basis age of superannuation cannot be enhanced to 60 years from 58 years especially when the relevant Rules do not prescribe so. She submits that after superannuation, the petitioner was given the benefit of contract appointment on two occasions and he should feel satisfied with the same. With respect to the benefit of sixth pay commission, it has been argued by the State counsel ,that no specific pleading^ is there as to from which date he is entitled for the same and therefore the said relief can also not be granted to the petitioner. 3. Having thus heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record, it becomes apparent that the petitioner has no right whatsoever to continue in service till the age of 60 years. It also becomes apparent that after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, the petitioner has already availed the benefit of contract appointment and merely on the basis of mutual agreement he cannot derive any benefit. As he has not made any specific pleading with respect to the benefit of sixth pay commission, this Court cannot grant him the said relief also. ^ '^,..:- ^^ ""€ \': ^ySSi^. 1 •-,1—;.S| ^ —3- ^'a. 4. In the result, the petition has no substance and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a proper representation to the competent authority for redressal ofhis grievances. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge