••SSsKW.-^.fi'S'SSSSKS1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR CHHAmSGARH » WRIT PETITION No.S2^& /2QQ6 PETITIONER itf' ^ . S4^ ^%^'f^^ ...^y ^>^>" Muslima Khatoon, w/o. Late Abdul Majeed Khan aged about 70 years, R/o. Hospital Road, Lakhanpur, Tah. Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). %- A®0' ^ESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. •fl—lf^t . f^ ^ll^~~^: CLESilt io'A. G.-BiLASPUB -2&<0£-0& State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer PWD •"' Division No. 1 Ambikapur. 3. Accountant General, ff' Chhattisgarh Govt. Fafadih Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). 4. Joint Director Accounts and <f Pensions, Bilaspur division, Bilaspur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-78 sn^rwl^iN? craTan^Tgitri^; ./ L Sa. 33T"Ml<11cl<<, yTf1y'l<S, fcldltiy *TwrTgm^ .^^..^eP.. ^ 'n^ 200 3ii^<i Msi<t»(^(jai^) WaiWHf^TW^T 4-7-; Smt. Hamida Siddique, coun^ •*l<;icf<n^ 41><dT^fekB <Rf*<il< ^•iTf^iT-sn^r .el for the petitioner. Miss Dipali Pandey, Panel L^wyer for the State/respondents No.1, 2 and 4, on advance copy. Heard both the counsel. The main grievance raised i she is not being granted famiiy pen^ The case of the petitioner i| Majeed Khan who was workingl respondent No.2 Executive Engin) |sy the petitioner in this petition is that ^ion by the respondents. ^ that she is the widow of fate Abdul as Time Keeper in the office of eer, PWD Division No.1, Ambikapur. On. attaining the age of superanrjuation, the husband of the petifioner retired on 31 March 1979 and hi4 pension was fixed vide Annexure-P/1 and P/2. The petitioner's husban^ died on 8.5.2004 and the certificate is Annexure-P/3 leaving behind the jsetitioner who is aged about 70 years, therefore.she is entitled for familyl documents to respondents, tbsrf pension. The petitioner submitted the they asked the petitfoner to bring ^uccession certificate, on which Q\e petitioner applied for the succession certificate and the succession |certificate (Annexure-P/5) was also submitted to the respondents. Tf{e pension PPO No.P^/ST/20, 857 in original form were aiso fonivard^d from the bank to the office of the Treasury, Ambikapur vide Ani|iexure-P/6. Even after so much correspondence, the family pen petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 be directed tc sion is not being sanctioned Tor the petitioner submitted that, therefore, decide family pension case of the petitioner atthe earliest as the (tetifioner is an old lady of which counse! for respondents N41 , 2 and 4 has n6 objection. years to J_ _- XI-HC-78 SSg'^IFIRFr, »Tfly'l$,iqc1iyy< HIHWI SbHltft ^[ 200 3<|^<| Ma«h('i?'^6'^) w^T?irR-ii+ craT 3TI^?T sbKiqi STaTWBfersn^T -^. +i<<f<-f'in^ Ki«^'^tetfl'<.Ri^i< ^iSff^irsn^r Ban/e Having hsard tearned coun^el facts and circumstances of the without expressing any opinion on| learned counse! for the petitioner respondent No.2 is directed to inifi^te in accordance with law, and send period of one month from the date respondent No.4 shall examine an|l the case to resoondent No.3 fot petitioner within a period of one from respondent No.2, in turn, the petitioner for grant of famiiy from the date of receipt of th4 accordance with law. With the direction aforesaidj Parties are entitled for certifil i^el for the parties, having regard to the >, having perused the record, and (the merit ofthe case, prayer made by fs just, fair and reasonabte, therefore, the case for grant offamily pension, ^he same to respondent No.4 within a |of receipt of copy of this order, in turn, scrutinize the case and shali forward sanction of family pension to th® from the date of receipt of papers restiondent No.3 shall decide fhe case of riension, within a period of one month papers from respondent No.4, in ml>nth ^he petition stands disposed of. ^d copy of this order. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge V4e ,^< '^