^ ;f < - ^•y:-:"^-^'y ^^y^- \,,e«e«^"j.A^'-'" dat.6&-"" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURrc.G.) W.P. No. 33&2- /2QQ6 Petitioner: Respondents: ^ Jalkunwar, Wd/o Late Sri Shyamlal Nishad, aged about 60 years, Caste-Kevat, R/o Village-Dudga, Tahsil-Kliatghora, District-Korba yersus / 1. StateofC.G.,throughSecretary,Department' ofTribal Welfare, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. /^2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Korba. .0' ^3. Collector (Tribal Welfare Dept.), Korba. '' ^/'. /v"1^ ^' \cw ^^ /\^ Welfce,^atghora,District-Korba ^ /^?> ^4. Sub Divisional Educational Officer, Tribal ^ Wplfaw KAfltohnra Diatrift-1 ^- ;;y^,oy '•^w; \'^f^ 53 &s .n ~'k'?n' 'S t ';i t'-ii. '» ~»y^ teJ3 f'^wf "], 5. The Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. (C.G) 6. Sr. Accounts Officer, Office ofAccoimtant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G). ?•';» '^VRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA / XI-HC-22 sn^Tw fewsn^r ai'-nqiflfer A- <^ 3^ •<41<IIC1<1, ®T(1<1'16,RldlUy 3ii^i <^ath ...v-J.trfo'2So2/o& IIIMI s»t<i«o------•••--•••••••••• gq- 200 "Sl sii^i ^wiwofer 7.7.2006 Heard Shri Ratan Pusty, f^ir the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, 60 5hri 5.K. Beriwal, Standinife Counsel for Union of India on advan.ee copy. The case of the petitio Nishad, who was working as As Tribal Welfare Department, 24.12.1995 cuid as per record hi |ier is that her husband Lt. Shyamlai ^istant Teacher in a school run by the ^ias sought voluntary retirement on was entitled for Rs.17,647/- towards directed to consider the case order regarding fina! payment c^ the petitioner has already made petitioner may be ailowed to respondents, to which learned c[ to the facts and circumstances counsel for the petitioner c^3^ 'OllId'fl-) 111M>'fffe'<fl <Rt«l< ^sTf^Tsn^r t. Adv. for the State on advance copy. 6PF, whereas, the Accountant ^enerol Officer, fiwalior has sanctioned only Rs.3,412/- towards 6PF. Counsel for the petiti^ner submitted that the petitioner's husbdnd was entitled for Rs.17,447/- towards i5PF amount but same has not been sonctioned by the r^spondents, therefore, respondents be >f the petitioner cmd pass appropriate f (5PF amount. He further submits that representation (Annexure P-9), but the mcke a fresh representation to the iunsel for the State has no objection. f-lwing heard learned coi^nsel for the parties and having regard f the case, the prayer made by iearned sars to be fair, just and reasonable, (Ift^y^) r XI-HC-22 ySn^rqir Rtl»<KI^] stiwv ylsfl -aa ^30. ^/^1 3^ tinM'tt, w^\ww, fslc<iu^< 3ll^l <^ach *<i*iwisn*i|<»»"""""""""""g^ 200 311^1 <WIWflf?(T therefore, the petitioner is al respondent No.2 within 15 d< petition and in turn, responA Late Shyamla! Nishad examin| within a period of one mot representation and thereafte respondent No.5 regarding No-5 to pass order regarding within a period of one moi communication from responde^ With the direction afort Consequentty, M.(W.)P. <tii<<tci41-< iit«aTfffe<^t<.Ri«i< ^ari^iran^T lowed to make a fre.sh representation to ^ys from today along with copy of this ^nt No.2 is directed to qet the case of f^d regarding entitlement of 6PF amount (th from the date of receipt of the forward the case of the petitioner to er^i-ittement of 6PF amount and respondent jaayment of 6PF amount to the petitioner ^th from the date of receipt of the |it No.2. or^so.td, the petition stonds disposed of. No. 2540/2006 also stands dist SA'- .'_. .^aA00 V..C lM.A6e (^y^)