t- r?-^!'.^ R -. .„... p irlit?!'S ^B'TlR'h' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6^3 /2006 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PET1TIONER ^•^' ^•^^""' ^y RESPONDENTS A '^...^fft ^. o.v^ ^m'^iA _ Smf. Shyama Bai Kannauje, aged about 60 years, widow of late Ravichandra Kannauje, resident of Pawan Nivas, Baniyapara, Juna Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, RaFpur (C.G.) 2 The State of Madhya Pradesh, through - the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopai (M.P.) 3 Accountant General, Government of Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 4 Accountant Generat, Govt of > Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. The Director, Department of Pension, Accounts and Treasur/, Raipur (C.G.) The District Treasury Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.) Joint Director (Accounts Pension and Treasury), Bilaspur (CG) The Pefffioner, named above, respectfully submits as under:- ^stl Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (81 No. 6693 of2006 Siut. Shyama Bai Kannauje Respondents -Versus- State of Chhatdsgarh & ofhers (Writ Petition under Articles 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Sin^e Bench : Hoa'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Ms Allita Shrivastava, Advocate for the petLtion.er. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. l, 5, 6 & 7. Shri Rajnish Baghel, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. O RD E R forall (Passed on tliis 6a day ofOctober, 2009) Heard. 1. This case pertains to grievance of non-graat of retiral dues/pension. Leamed couusel appearing for the petitioner, on iastructions, subinits that the matter m.ay be referred to the pension conunittee. 2. This Court, in the matter ofW.P.No.4642/2004 (Baijiiath Maadal Vs. The State of CIiihatdsgarh & others) aad other coruiected niatters, directed the Coiiimittee to consider fhe inatter of retual dues as the disputed question of facts were involved. The Coinmittee was coustituted by fhe State Goverament, pursuaat to the order dated 19.06.2006 passed in W.P.No. 1961/2006 (Sint. Keja Bai Chandrakar Vs. State Govermnent of Chhatdsgarh and ofhers), aad order dated 13.3.2008 passed m M.C.C. No. 105 of 2008 (State of Chhattisgarh aad others Vs. Baijnath Mandal aad aaofher). Thus, fhis petition is squarely covered by'fhe judgiaent and order dated 31st Jaauary, 2008 passed ia W.P.No. 4642/2004 (Baijnath Mandal (supra) as submitted by leamed coiinsel appearing for the parties. 4. This petition is accordingly disposed ofin fhe same tenns i.e., fhe of&ce of the Advocate General is directed to send fhe case to the Coiumittee, within a period of 15 days froia fhe date ofreceipt ofa 5. copy of fhis order as well as a copy of the petition froin the petitioner. Thereafter, fhe Coiiunittee shall issue notice to fhe petitioner aiid ofBcers concerued wifhiu a furfher period of 15 days. The ComTnittee shaU consider and pass order, in accordaace with law, after affording proper opporttmity of hearing to fhe petitioner. The petitioner aud fhe of&cers concemed may file additional docuinents, if necessary. The entire exercise, including payruent of retiral dues, if auy, to the petitioner, be coinpleted wifhin a period of four inonths froin the date of receipt of a copy of fhis order. The petitioner shaU supply one coiaplete set ofthe petition to the State counsel for ta-ansferruig the same to the Coimnittee. ThAur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge