G • &-'leo IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRH_PETTTIQN (S) No . $^^ / 2011 PETITIONER J ^ -.0 ^- ^l^ >^ ^cy" wyv" .&•••"" RESPONDENTS VERSUS / ARVIND KUMAR KASHYAP S/o Late Nirmal Kumar Kashyap Aged about 40 Years, Employed in Primary: Health Ceritre, Janjgir' R/o : ManishSmgh Thakiir Nanak Chand Befaind DevLMandir, JANJGIR (Champa) (Chhattisgarh) State ofChhattisgarh Through : The Secretary Department ofHealth, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, RAIPUR- 492001 (CG) The Director, Direetorafe ofHealth Services, RAIPUR-492001(CG), The ChiefMedieal & Health Officer, BILASPUR - 495001 (CG) WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA F~~ -=T- dic! •^II^IK'1'4, 0Tll+1'i|<o, fsldiy^'!. U3.^C<>/^o-$%^/tl "•-•^200 sn^T 'VPK (^f;p^]Er) 3?I*W^TRIiW 'cfen sn^i sb»i TOiiwofeaii^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan 30-09-2011 Shri B.P.Rao, counset forth With theconsent of learned t>wt<i<<ll HmvS ^ 'fe-a X^i^l.'. ^? siRpr sn^? Shrivastava. J, s petitioner/s. Shri Praveen Das, Deputy (^overnment Advocate for the State. counsei for the Darties, the petition is heard finally. This case pertains to grievance arising on account of non-grant of retiral dues. Learned counsel j appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the matfer mav be referred io the Hiflh Power Retiral Dues Committee. This Court, in W.P.No.4642 or Chha sgarh & others) and o question or facts were involved. f2004 (Baijnath Mandal Vs. The State ther connected matters, directed the Committee to consider the mafter of retriai dues as the disputed he Committee was constituted bv the State Government, pursuant to the order dated 19-06-2006 passed in W.P.No. 1961/2006 (Smt. Keja B^i of ChhaWsgarh and others), ai^d order dated 13-3-2008 passed in te/" Chandrakar Vs. State Govemment I.C.C. No.105 of 2008 (State o/J judgment and order dated 'his petition is accordingly Chhattisyarh and others Vs. Baljnath Mandal and anothei). Thus, th^ petition is squareiy covered by the 31 st January, 2008 passed m W.P.No.4642/2004 (Baijnath Ma|idat (supra) as submitted by learned counsei appearing for the partiesj disDosed of in the same terms l.e., the office of the Advocate Generaljis directed to send the case to the E.i].IIi?tf3—I-S/KO—2/20' I —1,50,000. ^iaHWliuuuu—wmiu 3'sr •<<itfici<<, ®Ti1^'i(o,fs|diyy< ^.f.(£>Ji^o.?g^,.?/?/ ""•^ sn^r 'tRqT (Tpf^^tr) sir^i'wtow WiTsii^isrtii^ i^, 'Dsepif TCDW^fttfan^r ^ Committee^within a period of 1£ of this order: Thereafter, the petitioner and officers concemed ^,- r^ f l^SP^:' aTiy"i'hSi8fliteeEa-9%lf;prned may tllltl'l'illl >1I1C1*!' ^l fe 41 'rfsregH ^? aifan sn^?' davs from me aate orrecelprof lommittee shali issue notice to the within a further period of 15 days. The Coijjmitt'Se' sttfiU;ls0C®jderand pafss order, in accordance with law, after ^^ft;'%^^" ~'^"""'~' ~"~rJ"' """'"' -—"—— "-• •—^ •aifor(Jing..pro|?^.i;.opp6rtunity of hjearing to the petitioner. The petitioner • • '^^S?ri>ifef? ile additional documents, if necessarv. The entire .exercise, including pjayment of retiral dues, if any, to the petitioner, be completedwithin ajperiod of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner shail supply) one complete set or the petition to the State counsei as well as couhsei for the Accountant General for transferring the same to the Com|mittee. __ __-- Sd/- ManindraMobanShrivastava ,I13|.iIi?ir3—FS;!40—2/20'i—1,50,000.