ICI" ^ 1^ 1 jn the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattishaarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P.(S)No. 1^V1 2010 Petitioner ^.-••"/y .^^y ^;^y .....V- ,'^' ^v- €/ Respondents &E.tO Smt. R.K.Sarwa (Ram Kuwar) Wife of Shri Arjunsingh Sarwa, ^e 6 s ytorj retiredA.N.M. C^i -sr^r Sub Health Centre, Ruwabandha, Nikum, District Durg (C.G. Present address - Q.No.43 B, Ruwabandha Sector Bhilai, Distt. Durg C.G. Versus 1. State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, hlealth Services, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Mukhya Chikitsa and Swasthya Adhikari Durg(C.G.)«-e. Writ PetrtLpn under Article 226 pf the Constitution of India For issuance of writ of mandamus/direction of any other aBfiropnate wrjt. n-f.t: HIGM<X>URTORCNHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER Wrjt Pefiyon (S) No, 1474 @f 2810 Smt. R.K. Sarwa RESPONDENT Versus ssate Qovernment of Chhattisgarh & another (Writ PetlUon underArtJcle 226 oftteConstitBtion oflndla) Slngte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satlsh K. Agnih<^rt, J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate tor tfaepetitianer. Shrt P.K.Bhadurl, Panel Lawyer for UieState. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 6tn day ofApril, 2010) 1. Wlth the consent of learn«tcounsel for the parties, the petition is heard flnally. 2. This case pertains to grievance of non-grant of retiral dues. Learned counsel appearing Tor tke pelitioner, on instructions, submits Uiat the matter my be referred to the Pension Committee. 3. This Court, In W.P,No,4e42/2004 (Bagnath Mandal Vs. The StateofChhattlsgarh & others) and other connected matters, directed the Committee te oonstdar the maftter of retrial dues as the dlsputed question of flacts were involved. The Commlttee was constltuted by e Stirte Government, pursuant to the order dated 19-P^-2096 passed in W.P.No.1961/2006 (Smt. Keja Bai Chandrakar Vs. State Government of Chhattisgarh and otbers), and .^rs^.. ^,.<at!jl "St <? C.i.s"-'®^ !g I 'cisiyis^j g %._ -JJ •"SSEES orderdatedl 3-3-200® passed jn M.C.C, Fto. W5 (State of Chhattlsgarh and others Vs. Baijnath JVtondal and another). Thus, this petltion ts squapely eovered by the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2066 passed In W.P.No, 4642/2004 (Baljnath Mandal (supra) as submitted by learned counsel app^ring for ttie parties. 4. This petition Is accordlngly disposed of in th» same terms l.e., the office of the Advocate ©eneralis elipeefted to send the case to the Commlttee, wltliin a period ®f15 days from the date of recieipt of a copy of this onler. Thereafter, th& Committee shall issue no<lce to (the petitioner andofRcers con<»rnedwiBiin a further pertod of 15 days. The Commlttee shall cwisWer and pass order, In accordance with law, affler affoFding proper opportunlty of hearing to the petlUoiwr. The petittoner and the offlcers concerned may flle additlonal documents, If necessary. The entlreexercise, includlng payment of reUral dues, any, to ttie petitioner, toe completed wlthln a peri<xl offpur montte from thed^e ofreceiptofacopyofUitsordsr, s 3 5. The i^titloner shall supply oneicemfll8te set of tht peUtlon totheState courasel fortransferring tt< same to the Committee. Arun Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge