,. % ( 9‘0 Z/j’ .W. H‘jAQE NO.” rWWWWWMW mm IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [CHHATTISGARH] MLIIPETITIQELS Ngggiilji 20% S L B PETIJ'IONER: - Ram Swaroop Mishra, Age-61 years, S/O- Shri Bhukhan La! Mishra, By Post—Retired Deputy Revenue Inspector, {Rajaswa Up Nirikshak}, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, R/OrNagar Nigam Colony, Maharana Pratap Chowk, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur [Chhattisgarh] -:VERSUS:— RESPONDENTS: - 1. State Of Chhaitisgarh, Through The Socretary, Department of Urban Administration & Development, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhavan, / RAIPUR, Distt.Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Municieaé Corporation Bilaspur, Through, The Commissioner, / Additional Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Distt: — Bilaspur (C.G.) ’3 The Director,/Up—Sanchanalaya {Pension}, Sanchanalaya Nagri Prashashan Evam Vikas Vibhag, {Directorate of Urban 85 Administration} D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur, Distt: ~Raipur (C.G.) V WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WWW ' DIRFCTION iS) OR ORDER (S) \QEW % (g'M-h‘he above named petitioner’most respectfully begs to submit as \° under: w“ \ / 1 PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: -» As per mentioned above in the cause title of the petition. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONQEN'I‘S: — As per mentioned above in the cause title of the petition. i!° / i Q7 IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3514 of 2009 Petitionar Ram Swaroop Mishra Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI (SB: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K. Agnihotxi J.) Shri J. A. Lohani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 3. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.2. o R D E R (Oral) (Passed on this 24th day of September, 2009) Heard. l. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 20.4.2009 (Annexure P/ 1), passed by the respondent No.2, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,158] -, towards excess payment, which was paid to him during service period, so that the pension case of the petitioner will be sent to the State. 2. » Learned counsel appean'ng for the respondent No.2 submits that the impugned order dated 20.4.2009 has been withdrawn by order dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure R—2/2) and the case of the petitioner has been sent. to the State Government for grant of approval. As and when the approval is received, the pension shall be disbursed to the petitioner. Thus, at this stage this petition has become infructuous. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the first part of the order dated 20.4.2009 has been withdrawn by the respondent No.2 but the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that the recovery of Rs. 28,158/-may H A Thakur to his intsrest, if so advised. become infructuous. N9 order asto costs. { o . g SdA' {‘Satish K. Agnihotri, Judge In View of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed, as having