..^ k G^ o .1^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. ^ 1 ^y^ 1 2010 PETITIONER : Mohit Ram Dhmv, S/o Shri Vishal Ram Dhmv, Aged about 57 years, Retired Rakshit Nirikshak, R/o 656, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : .-.^ \^^' t^\^' 4' ,-0 ^y ^v/^w ^.^ ^' ^•"..J"./' ^* ^' ^y^- ^" ^ <;^yy 1)' State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2) ^ The Secretary, Education Departnient, Mantralaya, Raipur-(C.G.) 3) ^ The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters (C.G.) Raipur-(C.G.) 4) <r The Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja-(C.G.) 5) "' The District Education Officery Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund- ^ (C.G.) 6) The Accountant General, Office of Accountant General (C.G.) Fafadih Chowk, Raipur-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :/B?LASPUR WRiT PETITION (S) N0. 7105 OF 2010. s PETITiONER RESPONDENTS Mohit Ra:m Dhruv Versus of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Indja) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri iSatish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- .Shri Prafull Bharat, Advocate.for the petltioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panei Lavv'yer for talie State/respondents No.1 to5. Ms. Smita Gtial, Advocateifor the respondent No.6. s ORDER(O^AU (Passed on this 04th day of May, 2011) Grievance of the petitioner is that despjfe the clear drder dated 08.09,2009, passed by the Pension Committee/ the respondents/ authoritles have not been complied'with within the specific period of one month. The facts in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitjoner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 08.08.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner fited a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.352172009 requestina for eariy settlement of the pensionary benefits. The Penslon Committee was constituted by the State Government, pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1961/2006 (Smt Keja Bal Chandrakar v. State Govemment and others) andorder dated 13.03.2008 passed in iVi.C.C. No. 105 of 2008 (State of Chhattisgarh & Othersv. Bsijnath Mandafandanother). This Court byorderdated 17.07.2009, rendered in W.P.(S) No.3521/2009, directed the Pensjon Commifteeto lookjntothe matter and pass the order within a period of four months. The Pension Committee, after hearing aii the relevant parties, passed the foiiowing order: i. . Z|Tf^?Frat •^1 01-01-1973 ^ 31-12-1986 ?n? ^ ftiSTT f^FfFr ^T ^ TT^ ^fr/^yH Tppff in s^rfr ^]- -^ ^T ^ ^mH'^ ^t ^n^i ^ l.\ 9 ji. ^ffif^ ^ TTraT t^? f^?FT iTTT ii|f£jcbtcod1 qFt 08—08—2008^ '^^45, ^c||pi^R<i ^t ~^ ti IteFT '20-04-2005 ^ 07-08-08 ?T^ ^t <i4|f^cb|cb<-ll ^ 31T14R^'|R:S ^ ^l!^|cbl<*>c)1 ^ ^Iit ^ Sjcjchi^j -c^ ^nS-t ^^14l|vtd ^ ^r ^ft ?i^ ^t: SI^MRy-tRii ^M ^f '^T7 ^ 'M^l'4ifvi<l 7f€lr! ^TT t ?it 31^)^1^IRld ^r^f ^ Dies rton^ ^r ^ ^te •^i it was further directed that the order may be complied with within a period ofone month. i 5. According to learned counse! appearing for |the petitioner, despite clearorder passed bythe Pension Committee, nothing has been done tilldate. i i 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the process to comply with the order hasaiready been initiated, however, the fact remains that the order has not been complied with till date. 7. This is a serious matter and there is no |justifiab!e reason and expianationon the part ofthe officers' asto why they have taken more than two years jn-eompliance pfthe order dated 08.09.2009. 8. Accordingly, the State Government is directed to complete the process, within a period offour weeks. For jnon-compliance ofthe order passed by the Penslon Committee, the respondent State has not offered any expianation. The petitioner being a retired employee has been made to suffer unneGessarily fot more than two years, desplte havingorder in his favour. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to costs. 9. !n view of the above, the writ petitlon is ailowed with costs quantified to be a sum of Rs, 5000/-, payable to the petitio.ner, which may be p recovered from officers, who are responsible for such a tong deiay in compiiance oftheorderdated 08.09.2009. 10. There shail be no order asto costs. i SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Ashok