State of Chhattisgarh. Department, Raipur, C.G. Through: The Secretary Revenue D.K.S. Bhawan, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) N0. 4486 of 2010 PETITIONER Tarachand Soni VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another Shri Rakesh Pandey counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava PL for the respondents /State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (1 5.1 1 .201 1) The petitioner, who retired as uperintendent, Land ecords, has assailed he order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexur P—1) sed by the Committee duly constituted by respondent o.2 to decide the retiral dues, holding that he was eitled for Rs. 1,86,353 only. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 31.1.2008 passed in W.P. No. 4069/2005, case of the petitioner was referred to repondent No.2 for being decided in accordance with law. He further submits that the notice dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure P-3) sent to the petitioner was never received by him which is clear rom endorsement dated 16.7.2008. According to the counsel for the petitoner, after coming to know about the said date at the eleventh hour, the petitioner appeare before the Committee n 2.7.2008 and showed all the documents to the committee bu he could not file any written objection wth respect to the documents put forth by the department and therefore his claim has not been decided correctly by the said committee. He further submits that in fa'ct the petitioner s entitled for Rs. 3,14,019 whereas he has been paid Rs. 1,8,353 only. He however submits that purpose of this petition would be served if the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 to be decided ‘afresh after affording due opporunity of hearing to the petitioner as he is in possession of all he documents to satisfy the committee as to the S R t e pas N nt i s {f i d o 2 t i i 6 t t 3$ _.2.. genuiness of his claim. He submits that retiral dues are not the bounty but the legitimate right of the incumbent. 3. Counsei for the respondents submits that the committee has rightly decided the claim of the petitioner and once the petitioner has appeared before the committee, he cannot take a somersault. 4. Heard counset for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the document of Annexure P—3 it is apparent that the notice dated 7.7.2008 was never served on the petitioner. However, accepting the contention of the petitioner and looking to the order impugned it appears that the petitioner could not get sumcient time to file the relevant documents before respondent No.2. Therefore, considering the larger interest of justice and-the fact that the matter relates to retiral dues, the order impugned (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Committee for deciding the clairn of the petitioner afresh. Petitioner is directed to approach respondent No.2 along with all the documents with respect to his claim being sought for, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order who in turn shall decide his claim after hearing respondent No.1 within a period of four months there- from. 6. lt is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or the conduct of the Committee/and the Committee would be at liberty to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with l . . ~ : — V law without nurturing any prejudice against anyone. r y r, ' r Sdl- i a 5 ’ ;Pritinker Diwaker Judge