/^- ^v- -^. BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ( CHHATTISGARH ) W.P. (S)No. U^\?> of 2010 PETITIONER : Nain Das, S/o Late Nilkanth, aged about 59 years, R/o Village- ^•••;v -o:'>rfr--^'\ Kolihapuri, Post-Pisegaon, Tahsil & .^21->/<^'^' •^'^v--!" Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh. VERSUS : 1. Bhilai Steel Plant, through Managing Director, Espat Bhawan, Bhilai Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Sr. Manager, (Personal, Counseling), Old Administrative Office, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. RESPONDENTS :!&.. iLJ...—.- ^3~sr "4|t<i<nq, ®T)i<H'ie,fsKniyy _.fcJj....fe)..f^.;..*J..l1.?-.!^22 sn^T TWP C^?f3^iT) ati^i w h-n* nsff3Ti^T^qraT ?<E<tWt yf?ci sn^T SB : Hon'ble Shri IVIanindra Mohan 09-08-2010 Shri T. K. Tiwari, counsel for tl^e petitioner. l-1eard on admission. Case of the petitioner is that h C.H.M.-3 Department, Bhilai Steel Pl; the age of superannuation in near (Annexure P-5), the petitioner was of Counseling Section of the respon< petitbner was asked to submit a wife. The petitioner submitted an as his wife is not living along with photograph. 1^ is working as Master Teohnician in ^nt and will be retirjng upon attaining ftlture. Vide memo dated 08-04-2010 retjuired to remain present in the offfce lent-Bhilai Steel Plant and there the p(iotograph of himself along with his afijdavit dated 06-05-2010 stating that fiim, he is unable to submit such a Learned counsel for the developments in the offioe of respon<(ent know that his pension case is not beiif such photograph has not been submitted. Upon bejng enquired, it is s( regard has been passed, but this \i based on certain information. At thi^ deoide the aforesaid issue in the order in this regard. However, in petitioner is withheld only on this petitioner to approach this Court. In suffioe to say, in the absence of ther^ case <t)l<rf?t<l1tl ^W^ ^ ts^ Tf^R^K 'fraifin sii^i Shrlvastava, J. tietitioner submits that from the No.2, the petitioner has oome to [ig processed only on the ground that tated that no specific order in this an apprehension of the petitioner stage, this Court is not inclined to a|}sence of there being any specific !S^, if upon retirement, pension of the Iground, it would be open for the |o far as apprehension is concerned, being any speoific rule disqualifying i-iC, ?..<-] iplW—FS/147—2'2UIO—1,00,000. + T tffitMWtSIKyf ^s[ "4i<<i<vi<i, ®T)1yi(o,[aidiyy —.^^^^^l^. 311^1 'V^K ('yAy'yl) •311^1v Ri-fi'* —L- Tumsne entitlement of pension on the ground the wife, it would not be open for the ofthe petitioner. With the aforesaid observation ^]'<i<i<flf *iit<<A' 4 'fyzt <FII«(K iTaffinan^t of non-submission of photograph of •espondents to withhald the pension the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- | Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge t'W'Ql (iifh Si?IT?'c, .^-riFITiF —FS/147—:/2010 —1,00,000. u-^.W'l