IN 'niE_H:rQH_CQ(mT _3UDICATURS OF aBlATTI_S®eH_AT_BII.ASSim ISRZ? PETmOH N0. PSTCTICaER L;«, ^- .^^ x<^» ,.••"' 'A^'^-^' B'ESPONDEgTS ^:" .^o^-c^ <2^<'^»>r.--^" .^"'^^"'^s.i*'''' .^yy smfe. aajb^ti. xadav i^/BiS ^.'v\\ aamprasScf VaSav (U.lsterafee vlllayr} aged 79 y®ai?s,^w, destjltute tm<sa»ployad resjldenfc Of Itelpda 'BaSsr. Tabsil - DistrAct Raipur (G.©.) 1. TIaieStsfe®of CBhattsAsgarh thrcugh seecetary. D^artaent o£Water Reseta'ses (lcrigat- lon), D.K.Bhavan SeM'etaEiate, 2. The Soinb DAreetor ydBance, accoants awi PensAco. Raipur. DistEiot Ra.tpur (C.e.) 3. Ttee Executlve Englneer, Dapsrtesent o£Watec Rescarcas Baloda Bazar (Bivislon K0.2) Dl-sttlefc salpur (G.s,") 4. The Sub-Dlvisional Offlcer, <» tRK Water Resoarces Deptfc. BaASda Bazar, liilsitract Ralpur S.'Rteseoretary, Plnsnce Aeeount (pensjLw.), o£tfce state of C.S. seeretariate, B.K.BliawaB Raipur, Dlstriet Ralour(C.S>) 6. TOie CoUectcif, Raipur, Olstt.Sct RaJLpar (C.Q.) ESTITIW UCT3ER JSRTICIS 226 AND 227 GP TOffi COHSTITOTI O]?I >IA^GR XSSt® MAt©MTOS,, CSieiCRaRY, PRWIBITIGS ETC< OR KS£ APHtGPRiaTE tdRCT DIREeSE'IGM OR ®ast. XI-HC-78 *ll*ldl sh*il«h 'S^t '»ww<<,wS\wie, Iqciiuy ^f^.tfA/F'.k. ^ 200 3ii^<i ^^eh ('y^ysft) 3n^TqirR-<i* awsn^rOTRi STdTWfffia'sn^T <!hi<ilCT<)1-f *)ii<iTffteI^<Ri'tdi< ^3Tf^T3TI^r wiUow 23.6.2006 Shri J.R. Ver-ma, Advocatej Smt. Chitra Shrivastayol, adyance copy. This is yet onother case ^! lady aged about 79 years and wi|Jc was working as Peon in the Wat^r District Raipur and died in the paid family pension by the re; The facts of the case sh< are indifferent towards the righjt; a iega! right to get the family decided by the respondent auth4r by none else than the re; record of Late Shri Ramprasaip dated 8.8.2005 (Annexure P-1 Water Resources Oepartment , No.S-Joint Director, Finance, 4' therein 1+»at Late Shri Rampra^ the application of the widow under the Rules of 1966 and aftfet service book of Late Rawprosa|d for the petitioner. P.L for the respondents/State on spoi^denti •ighjts ipondent auth4rities isponder^ts 11) jfhere the petitioner, who i's an illiterate of Lcte Shri Ramprasad Yadav, who Resources Department, Baloda Bazar, }/ear 1975 while in service, is not being aijidents. iwSthat how the respondent autiiorities of the petitioner. The petitioner has p^nsion, even then her claim is not being on the ground of lapse committed themselves by misplacing -t+ie service Yadav, which is evident from letter written by the Executive Engineer, pivision-II, Baloda Bazar to respondent l^ccounts and Pension, Raipur mentioning tad Yadw died on 10.1.1975 forwarded ^titioner to proyide her family pension t^r preparing the dupiicate copiesof the Yadav, sent the same to respondent p^titi rn i K XI-HC-78 XI-HC-78 'S^ •^IWM-li, fS^\»'16, faclWy Hiq^ll S»»Hiq> W1[ 200 aiid^i >4a«i('i^iI^is.'T) 3n^rEBrf^ira? tWSll^lsbHW gRraTHfersn^T No.2. On the same appiication, asked that whether any enquiry qil'illCT'fl-l IIHClT^te'^l'tRlWK ^srf^ffan^r respondent No.2 put some queries and has been instituted against the person who has lost the service booko-lf Late Ramprasad Yodav. The Executive Engineer again vide letter date^ 16.2.2006 explained the situation but so far nothing has been done. The attitude of respond^nt authorities is worth condemnation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the n|atter of S.K. Mastan Bee Vs. Senerat Manager. South Central Railw|ay and another reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court- Cases 184 held jthat; "even if an illitera-) time of death of right to family p^ husband, it was <] employer to colnpute the fomily pension payable and offer the saml making of a claim o port.' The Court has further heli "very denial of H amounted to a viola to the appellant undl Under thess circumstan respondent No.2 is directed to e lady does not know at the her husband about her legal .nsion on the death of her bligatory for her husband's s to the widow even without initiation of litigation on her jthat; er right to family pension tion of the guarantee assured sr- Art'icle 21." ces, without causing further delay, :onsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order-sin accc^rdance with law within a period of 60 .V-'' XI-HC-78 3^ ^m^-ti, »Tflif'ie,Ricfiyy «mcnsswqi ^; 200 3(1^14a«n('iyiidiS.'T) sii^rw^iw (WT 311^1 SbH Roshan/- ^s ,<0 ?^(TraTCTf?B'3TI^?r -^ grar|t pass4d days fr-om today regarding from the date of death of her for the interest © 9% per annum As ho.s been mentioned ea^ lady of 79 years, therefore, it needfui. This order is being formalities of giving time to therefore, if any body is reconsideration on any justifiabt^ at iiberty to move this Court b^ recalling this order. How/ever. if Orders within a periocf of 60 day| to approach this court by matter. With the directions afores htlsband filir|g +wld'in-< IWcfT^fe'd <Rl^K ^aif^irsn^T of family pension to the petitioner The petitioner shall be entitled ion the amount due. •lier that the petjtioner is very age-old is dut^ of the respondents to do the based on -the records without any the respondents to file the reply, fjrejudiced <xnd 1+iis order requires ground, then the respondents shall be filing an interlocutory application for the respondents do not pass necessary ^, then the petitioner will be at liberty an interlocutory application in the foredpid, the petition stonds d'^iose^of^ S61- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ;/^