(2) BEN' < , . 'T IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S1 N0. ^>so>^ QF 2006 PETITIQNER VERSUS / RAMDHANI RAM VISHWAKARMA AGED - 64 YEARS, SON OF BHAROSA VISHWAKARMA RETIRED - ACCOUNTANT FROM - JANPAD PANCHAYAT, DANTEWADA, R/0 KAILASH NAGAR, DANTEWADA, DISTRICT - DANTEWADA (SOUTH BASTER)(C. G.) RESPONDENTS f,.' \^...--y ^^ ^•y-y' 1.-^ STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,- ^" THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR .^0"''A^'-^?''' ^•V'..^'Q^-''' ^ t^( v\jr -»fc>- Ll'^'-'^. "-S <'A- '^ A. O. SiLASPHR 2. THE DIRECTOR,-"' SCHEDULE CASTE & SCHEDULE TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CHHATTISGARH, H. Q. - PT. R. S. U. CAMPUS, RAIPUR. 3. THE COLLECTOR,-^ (TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT), DISTRICT - DANTEWADA, (SOUTH BASTER) (CHHATTISGARH). 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,// (TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT), DISTRICT - DANTEWADA, (SOUTH BASTER) (CHHATTISGARH). 5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,/" JANPAD PANCHAYAT, DANTEWADA, DISTRICT - DANTEWADA, (SOUTH BASTER)(C. G.) J^ - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE - 226 frS3^ OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3?? •^|1|1<'1<1, O^WIS, !qc1l«y 31I^T5|iT R-ii+an^r sDHroHfiiT STT^T q^th imctl SBNIch^ss^:^^^ ^p.»>-.;.k),£S-.-<..-.-.;.g^ 200' f^s sn^r^gTwgfeT Shri R.K. Kesharwani. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Gc| Heard. Eariier petitioner filed a ^ "7-A- To quash th| vide Annexure suspension penol 18% interestp.a. :ounsel forthe Detitioner. , vt. Advocate forthe State. mt Detition with the foltowing reiief. e punishment order. dt 10.3.99 P/2 and to regularize the from 21.8.85 to 31.5.89 with S- To oass dir^: granting two higi view of instructibn Annexure P/7 & ofservices. tstion to the ResDondents for ier pay scaie (Kramonnati) in C- To issue a order to the Resi case ofthe Petitio D-Anyother reliel E- Cost of petition This Court heard and de of 2003 vide order dated 08/0 5 reads as beiow: "5 ln view of the a by iearned couns basis of the reti nothing syrvives petitioner is di apptication in the ths formalities for pension within +l<4?<'l<fl-l t|14<A ft'fetS <Rl<^;K ^isri^'ETSTI^T of the State Govt, vide 8 with consequentia! benefits sandamus of wriVdirection or ondents to settie the Dension positiveiy. oner as may be deemed fit. |may be avi'arded." |:ided that writ petition bearing No. 270 p/2006. Operative portion of order para apove stated submissions made ^l for the respondents, on the |rn fiied by the respondents, |n this matter. However, the to fi!s appropnats i|equisite form and compiete al }he purpose of settiing his fina! ]a perif?d of one month. .(ift^y^) L^ XI-HC-22 3^-*ii<iiM'li, OTfld'is, Riciray 3TT^?T*<ach IIHCTI sn*ii<n ••••••••••••••••••••• ^ 200 R<)«d an^BT^r f?;IRi3n^T Stit|i»h^rfgtT sh4W STI^TTOITWflfeT st>i<iF^4irt HpT^ft ^ t^^' <nii-^i< ^aiRlti sn^T i nereaner, ine complete the forn within a period ofi Petitioner has filed the in "(A) To issue a wri suitable direction of the retria! due 18% interest on retirement i.e.,30 retrial dues i.e., Oi fesponaenis are aireciea--io ^alities and ssttle the pension our weeks." ^tant pstition for the following reiiefe. t in the.nature of ma-damus or [egardjng the deiayed payment s and may kindiy be attowed retrial dues from the date of 16.2002 tili the reaiization of rtober, 2006 as a penal rent. (B) May kindly b^ writ for regularizalti from 2.8.1985 to| consequentia! ber^efi pieased to issue appropriate :ion of the suspension period 19.5.1989 and to aiiow the sfits of services etc. (C) May kindi^ respondents for v Hon'bie Court suspension periQ comDensation of delayed in com enquiry proceedinl (D) Any other retie deemed fit. (E) Cost of petitioil No fresh cause of action Court has already passed fina! a!lov«' any Interest or damages | grant any Interest or damages. be pieased to allow the if Rs.25,000/- from the frong information given to the towards reguiarization of d and further to allow the Rs.25,000/- for extra ordinary oietion of the departmental f as the Hon'bie Court may be may be aliowed." arose for the instant petition. When this srder for his retira! benefits and did not hat means the Court is not inclined to ('ft^ygir) XI-HC-22 sn^T^iT f^fRisn^T sbfi'ft Hf?(T Sbfiqi 3^?^(raRTO, ®Tn<1'l<8,Kcliuy 3TT^T <<ath tTHWI Sh11<»> V^ 200 fa^; 3n^r 6«11Wyfefl So far as reciularizatior) period has been regularizec( 07/09/2006. In view of the matter, admissible or can be allowed the Constitution of India. In the result, the pet| accordinglydismissed. *i<if<-i41-i wrat ff te^ <Ri«i< ^srf^irsn^r of suspension period Is concerned, that by the Coilector vide his order dated no relief as sought for, appears to be invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of tion is liabls to_be_aismi^ed and is Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge ^7 ('ft^y^r)