IMPORTANT POINT
The promotions of the petitioners were in conformity with the Rules of 1989, and the objections raised by the State were not valid.

ORDER :

1. As common question of law and facts are involved in the bunch of these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners have filed the bunch of the writ petitions being aggrieved with the non fixation of their pension and payment of undervalued provisional pension. The petitioners have also prayed for other retiral benefits such as leave encashment and payment of gratuity to them.

3. Before going through the bone of contention between the parties it is expedient for this Court to extract the service chronology of the petitioners in tabulated form :-

4. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioners stood retired from service as per the dates mentioned above but their pension as per the last salary drawn by them has not been finalised. Only provisional pension of Rs.12,600/- pm is being paid to them. Aggrieved with the non-fixation of regular pension as per the last drawn salary, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions and prayed for fixation of pension as per last salary drawn by them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled to fixation / computation of their pension as per the last salary drawn by them on the date of their superannuation. The act of omission and negligence on the part of the respondent authorities has resulted in violation of fundamental rights to present petitioners and would pray for issuing appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the Respondent authorities to fix the pension of the petitioners, based on the last salary drawn by them within stipulated time and other retiral benefits such as leave encashment and payment of gratuity to them.

6. The State has filed their return contending that the delay in releasing the regular pension is on account of dispute with regard to promotion of the petitioners. The petitioners were initially appointed as contingency paid employees and they subsequently were promoted in regular pay scale. The office of the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur raised objection while considering the case of the petitioners for pension that the petitioners have been wrongly granted promotion. Under this situation, the respondents made attempt to obtain post fact permission from the State Government to grant promotion, however, the Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Medical Education vide letter dated 25.01.2023 denied grant of post facto permission for grant of promotion to the petitioners, therefore, regular pension to petitioners could not be fixed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

8. The petitioners have filed report of the committee dated 28.09.2022 which has examined the case of the petitioners for grant of post facto approval and after going through the records has recommended for getting approval.

9. This Court vide order dated 12.09.2022 has directed the State to clarify what is the criteria for promotion on the post of Lab Attendant from the post of peon. The State was also directed to clarify if peon who is working as Contingency Paid Employ