003 IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 4-4- IZW6 c. PETITIONER ^. RESPON&ENTS ^:&0^' ^^^^-•"^ p(eS<»ft8"Y^l..' As'.61 •<'' \/ SHEObUTTA PRASA& BHARTIYA S/o Brijanandan Prasad Shukla, aged about 69 years, R/o 6ram Misda, Post Misda, Tehsil Navagarh, Distr-ict- Janjgir-Champa [C.(5.] VERSUS 1] SXATE OF CHHATTIS6ARH Through- Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, &.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.}. Z] COLLECTOR, Dis-trict -Jashpurnagar [C.6.]. 3] COMMISSIONER Tribal Welfare Depar-tment, Raipur [C.6.] 4] DIRECTOR, Tribal Welfar-e Department Raipur [C.6.] 5] PRINCIPAL (Sovernment Boys Higher 5econdary School, Jashpurnagar, District- Jashpur [C.6.]. 6] JOXNT MRECTOR Accounts & Pension Department Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur [C6.]. 7] STATE OF MA&HYA-PRADESH Through- Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal [M.P.] WRFT PETTriON UN&ER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTCON OF WOIA XI-HC-22 •s^ -^itiicti), esMly're, '^?iW3<; 029 to.p'.tM'p. U.^^<rl(ft 200 3tA?i%r 1?;!RT 311^1 ^)tfN-> '^f^tT x sir^i'g^iiwcfei S-l-^06 Shri Ourudev Sharan, oounsel foi Shri A.S. Kachhawaba, Dy. Govt; Heard. Ljeamed counsei for the petitipn^r submits that atthough Uie petitioner retired in the year 1M6 but no retiral dues havej been paid to him. Leamed oounsel for thaState w^s asked as to why the retiral dues have not been paid. He submitted that it is not a and the teave not due te sanctioned. ~i submitted the representations to the D Madhya Pradesh, Bhopai regarding as 'iblltrl'i)-) 'Wlyff'? tS^t Ttesn '^sfpgitsn^T the petitioner Advocate, tbr the State of Chhattlsgarh. ase where the petitioner has been retir^i Learned counset forthe petition^r was asked to reier to the retirement order. On such query being made, counset rejerred to the document Angex.P/1, which is an application dated 25/1/1982 submitjedby the petitiorier to the Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Govt. of Madhy^ Pradesh, Bhopai wherejn it has been mentioned that the p^itioner had appljed for leave w.e.f. 1/11/1980 to 30/4/1982 he leave was not aliowed. Leamed counsel forthe petltion^r submitted that on 1^/1982 the petitioner submitted his joining report to respondejit no.5, which was not allcwed. It Is further submitted that on 8/6/1982 (Annex.P/^) anei 4/9/1982 (Annex.P/4) the petitioner been given to him. it is ateo submped that the t»titioner again submitted a representation (Annex.P^) dated 4^/1983 to the Direotor, Tribai Welfare Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, The corrtertion raised is that ector, Tribal Welfare Department, Govt. of iigning of duties but no positive repiy has Bhopal but of no vain. It is aiso submitted that thereafter the petitioner made se\^rat orat requests but those were also not consyered. no expianation was called for from the petitioner and no discipiinafy action {»• departmental enquiry was commenced ^against the petitioner for remaining ab^ent from duty. Even no show cause notrefe t^ XI-HC-22 an^rqii •f?;ri??sn^i sfrR ^T^ L-..- Vf/f ^ ^ ^ A ^EEr-^nqRTO, dTiwi<i. !»«i!*<i< Us.p.^c'. t?t< /-^OT&'? . 200 311^1'TOIigTTto -2-^ was Lssued against him. The prayer 14 service period and atso grant'pension ^nd retiral dues on attaining the age of 60 years in the year 1996. Leamed counsel for the State |of Chhatti^arh vehwnently opposed the prayer. If Is submitted that on completir|g the age of 60 yeare inthe year 1996, he assumed that he got retired from thes^rvice and he elaimed for pension and the retirai dues, which is not permissible. it the year 2005 he ffled the instant petitior) Havlng considered the facts and record, it is amply clear that on attainin^ <*!ii!<"i41-) tfp^i ^ is^S '(f^Fi^rc ^? sifwi an^r made ror treating the period of leave as ^ submitted that the documents filed by the petitioner show that after the year 1983 t|ie kept quiet for about22 yeare and now in claiming the relief. It is aiso submitted that there is nothingon the reoord that the p|etitioner floade several ora! requests to the authorities concemed. ;ircumstances of the case and material 6n the age of 60 yeare the petitioner himsetf claimed to be retired and prayed for retir^l dues. The documents show thatfor about 22 yeare from the year 1983, the petitior^sr has not even approached the authorities concerned or avaited the remedy availa^te under the law. The pleadings and ttie documents filed at present do not make <|>ut a case for issuance of a writ in exercise of jurisdiction under Arttele 226/227 of |he Constitution of India/ The petitioner ; . \ ' ^ • \ . ' however, |f so desire, may make a repre^entationfo the concerned authorities and if such a represerrtation Is maJe, itis operfl same in accoidance with law. Witti the aforesaidobservations ajid directions, he petitiDns isjdlsDjaffid ot Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge the authorities to consider and deckje the [^ ^ss^