^ @ va»i 0^~ l ;ENQ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(S) N0. 9D'^~ OF 201 1 PETITIONER: James Masih, Aged About- 63 Years, S/o- Late Shri Mohan Masih, R/o- Shakti Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^^y RESPONDENT(S): 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretaiy, Department of Public Welfare Departnients, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) . , 2.Engineer- In- Chief Public Welfare Departments, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) , S.Executive Engineer Public Welfare Departments, Division- Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 4.Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF THE PETITION 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. ^ ^/ ^'s: HluHCQUgTOE CHHATT[SGARH_AT BiLASPUR WRiTPETIT[QN_(S) No. 907 of 201 1 PETmONER1 RESPONDENTS James Masih VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh &. Others WRJT PETrUON UNDER ARTiCLE 226 QETH^COMSTlTUTipN OFJNDfA h^ Hoa'bte, S hrLPrashant Kumar Mishra, u. i-r^^tS^r- i t "^-^^i aili Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocafe for the pefliione)-. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri KashifShakee!. Advocaie forths rssoondent No,4. (Passed on 1 •aifi davofc'ebn.iary, 2011) Learned counsei.appearing for the petitioper submits thst the case. being payment of retirs! benefits maSer, irisy bs refef'res to the oenslon comniifiee. This Court, in the matter of W.P. No. 4542/2004 i3aijnath K 7778 Siate of Chhattlsgarh & Others^ and crther connscted 'TieSters. directed the Comn'iittee to consider the rr'atier of retira! dues as the disputed duesfJon of facfs were invc'ved. The Commfttee was •^H'-J ^^'s/hl -^\.? ^^^Si '^^^'^'^'£Q f^ f*^.^ ^ S^i?"*^ yV'-^:^:'^ 'y^'l f ^C''4 ?<^t 2<t<S'~ ••t'--flr- ^~.M.'.^ .•£r^~^'^^>~^ ^S-^""" 'rj^LU.ui^Q oy iH^? o'.s.i's <sovsrn?T^fj'i, pufsus'i'1, ic sns orQ^E" Qoi6'' 19.06.2008 oasssd in W.P. No. 1981/2006 (Sint. Keia Bai ^^ rf'^'/'ln J^'^S'5^^fr-/*»;i^^" ••-^yat,^ Jft^-[P^-.^>,-v*r%,'' f^,W^^L! .1. y^^ J^-, !^ /^'^^^,J ^ns^nQfQKs^ vf. ^iQiQ ^ov^mmsni ^HQ 0£T?©^S.f SHO OfOSf OS^QC 13.Q3.20Q8 passed Jn M.C.C. No. 105 of 2008 (Sfefe o;'1 Chhafflsgatft & Oihers v. Ba'ijnath Mafida! ancf anos'ser,. Thus. ihis peiition is squareiy covered by the ludsment and order dateci 31s' of Jgnusry, 2008 passed in VV.P. No. 4842/2004 Baynatti Mandai (suprs) as submitted by Searned counsei appearing for the parties. ThEs isefition is accordingiv disposed of in fhs same terms 1,9. the office of the Advocafe General is directecf to send the case to 'the '\CofnTiittee. within a psriod of 15 davs from the date of recebt of a copv ofthe oetltion from the oetit'onsr and this order. Thereafter, th- ^—^ 4. Committee sha!! issue notice to the peiitioner a"d the offlcers concerned, within a further period of 15 days. The ComFriittee shaH consider and pass order, in sccordanse wifh Saw, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to She peSitioner. Tha petitioner and the orficers concerned mav fiie-additional documents. if necessarv. The entire sxercise, inciuding payment of retiral dues, if any, to the petitioner be 'compieted within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copv of this order. The oetitioner shali suopiv exsa com of the getition to the learned counse! aDDearlna for the rescondents for forwarding the same to the S^'/-iy^Yy:i^''^£ 1 H8s!Uq3C. Sd//- . - „ Prashant Kuraar Mishra Judge kjown