<-. .- v. C^ ^) i3^/o$ BES'OF.-E THE M,P. ADMINISTRATrVE.TRIBUN&L; JABALPUR. OoA.NO. ?TJ Q)^^/96 . -^ 1« POORAN SINGH N&YAK, AGSD 5.8 yrs*, S/o Shri Pfisasram Nayak^ By occupation- Hetd«» Asstt » Teacher, R/o Village Kujuara, Tah» Saraipali^ Distt. Raipur. ' •«,<><, APPLICANT V/s THE'STAT2 OF. M.P. » tnrough- the Secretary, Deptt* -of. School l&luaation, Mantralaya, Bhopa.1^ 2o Yh.e Joint Director, Public Instructions, Raipur Div, Raipur* 3* The Dy* Director Education/ Distto Sducat on Officer^ Education Distt <» -Hahasamund^ Headquarter, R^-your<>. ,.-' 4» THE DIRECTC[)E$. Peneion and Employees vfelfare^ ' . M»Pft,^hoDal» • '•... 5., THE ACCOUNi'ANT GENERAL OF M.P.t, Gwalior^ ^>: APPLICATIOH UHDER SECTIOH 19 OF TH2 M)HINISTRATZV£ TRIBUHA.LS ACT , 1 985 (^i^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1350/2005 PETITIONER Pooran Singh Nayak Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others RESPONDENTS Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF ORDER Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fSl N0.1350/2005 PETITIONER Pooran Singh Nayak Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Present: Shri L. C. Dash, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 14^dav of January, 2010) This petition is filedby the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 24-11-1983 (Annexure A-5) by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service by way of punishment. The petitioner is also aggrieved as after compulsory retirement and dismissal of appeal, the retirement benefits such as G.P.F., Gratuity and Family Benefit Fund, Pension ete. have not been paid to him. The petitioner prayed in the petitioner to quash the order of compulsory retirement on 24-11-1983 or in the alternative to pay him all salary till date and to pay all retiral dues along with pension. (2) At the time of hearing. learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that challenge in the jnstant petition is confined only to non-payment of retiral dues and benefits. (3) In the return filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was compulsorily retired on the basis of departmental enquiry on 24-11-1983. Respondents have stated in their return that noproof has been given by the petitioner that he has preferred an appeal before the competent authority. In so far as petitioner's grievance arising out ofon account of non-payment/non-release -^^ •ff*L\ T'_.^ •^^^s^^ -2-- ^(J of retiral benefits is concerned. it has been stated in the return that the petitioner has not come forward to settle his claim by filling in various forms as is required for settlement of retiral dues. (4) Respondent No.5 has filed separate return stating that it is concerned only with G.P.F. account of the petitioner and G.P.F. final payment case of the petitjoner has not been furnished to the said respondent by the department, in the absence ofwhich, respondent No.5 is unable to proceed in the matter. It has also been stated that the G.P.F. final payment case will be finalized in accordance with the rules as and when the case is received from the department. (5) The petition 'was filed way back in the year 1996. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the retiral benefits of the petitioner have not been settled so far. (6) On the other hand. learned State counsel referring to retumsays that the petitioner himself did not fill the necessary forms which are required to be submitted for settlement of pension case. (7) In a batch of petitions W.P.No.4642 of 2004 (Baijnath Mandal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others)and other connected matters, order has been passed on 31-01-2008 recording that a committee consisting of senior officials has been constituted to look into the grievances of the retired employees. in respect of retiral dues. A statement has been made by the State Government that all the disputes raised by the petitioner in this batch pf petitions. may be decided by the said high power Committee within prescribed time. Order has been passed Issuing directions to send the cases to the Committee for their decision after giving notice to the aggrieved retired employee. Thereafter, another order has / '/' ^ •' //'' -2 ..^ " ;¥^/ w ^^ -3 been passed on 13-03-2008 in M.C.C.No.105 of 2008 (State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Baijnath Mandal and another) directing the State Govt. to constitute a high power Committee consisting of senior government officers to look into the grievance of the retired employees relating to their retiral dues. Vide order dated 01-05-2008 in a similar case (W.P.No.1961/2006) (Smt. Keja Bai Chandrakar vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and others) directions have been issued to the committee to consider the case of the retired employee/petitioner in that case. (8) Considering the various directions issued by this Court from time to time in matters relating to retiral dues and taking into consideration the present case. particularly where the petitioner and the respondents are raising the disputed question of fact, in my considered opinion, interest of justice would be served jn directing the high power Committee/retiral dues committee already constituted and jn existence to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petjtioner. (9) The petitioner and the officers concerned may place before the committee necessary documents and information. The committee shali complete the entire exercise including payment of retiral dues, if any, to the petjtioner, within a period ofthree months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Department of School Education, who shall take immediate steps not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to forward the case of the petitioner to the said committee. (10) One extra set of petition, reply etc. may be supplied by the learned counse! for the petitioner to the learned counsel for the respondent for onward transmission to the sajd retiral dues committee along with a copy of this order. !t A- is also directed that the Committee shall complete the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order either through the government counsel or through the Secretary, Department of School Education whichever is earlier. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Needless tostate, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to approach the Court in accordance with law. (11) With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude ^ Tumane