State of Chhattisgarh & Others ...Respondents ! Shri YC Sharma Advocate for the petitioner ^ Shri VVS Moorthy Dy AG for the Staterespondents CORAM : Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated : 12/04/2010 : Judgement ORDER ORAL Passed on 12th day of April 2010 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on account of the ill health of the petitioner, the petitioner working as Surveillance Maleria Inspector, later on redesignated as Junior Malaria Inspector, on account of sufferance of acute cervical spondylitis, submitted an application on 01.01.2003 under the provisions of Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 to grant him voluntary retirement. No order was communicated to the petitioner. It is presumed that after three months, the petitioner stood retired voluntarily w.e.f. 31.03.2003. 2. Shri Sharma, learned counsel further submits that subsequently, by order dated 22.08.2005 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 05.10.2005 w.e.f. 31.10.2005. Thereafter, no steps have been taken for grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner was paid only anticipatory pension. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner made an application on 7.2.2006 communication was sent by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, to the Joint Director (Establishment) Directorate of Health Services, Raipur wherein it was stated that the application of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. Thus, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation. It was further submitted that the petitioner may be granted 239 days of earned leave and 102 days leave without pay. On the above stated communication, no order has been passed. 3. Shri Moorthy, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that it appears that the file of the petitioners service record has not yet been finally settled as if the date of the retirement of the petitioner is taken as 31.03.2005 as voluntary retirement as stated by the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been given pension on the basis of his voluntary retirement. But the impugned letter dated 22.08.2005, retires the petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. JUDGE Amit HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2279 of 2003 PETITIONER : Yogendra Singh Chouhan. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Anil Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A. for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 12th day of April, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was working as Constable in the police department, on a complaint made by one Manjit Singh, departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. After enquiry, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement by the Superintendent of Police, Koria on 01.07.2001 (Annexure P/1). Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 17.07.2002 (Annexure P/2). Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal which was also rejected vide order dated 29.01.2003 (Annexure P/3). 2. Shri Pandey submits that the order passed by the appellate authority is bad in law on account of the fact that the said order is a nonspeaking order. 3. It is well settled that if a higher authority affirms the order passed by his subordinate, the same is not required to be dealt again in detail when the subordinate authority has already considered and decided all the issues and passed a reasoned order. In the case on hand, the Superintendent o