@' M"w" w" UB IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. <^3 / 2011 PETITIONER ^^> ,.^\ _ * .;..- fc^-s^- .^s^' KU. PRAMILA D/o Late Sakha Ram Aged about 38 Years, Unemployed, Residing at: Purana Godari Para, Village & Post: Chirmiri, District: Korea (Chhattisgarh) l.S' ^*'- ^.-- VERSUS RESPONDENTS SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Through : Tbe Chairman & Managing Director, S.E.C.L., Head Office, Vasant Vihar, BILASPUR(CG) The Sub Area Manager, South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Kuresia Group, PO : Kuresia Colliery, District: Korea (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^-2. rrr rr" r>T-lrTjrT'T/-^XTT?rL sn^i^ifrfw WITSII^TSnNi *ll*(dl 9)t<ra» 75[ "4|<||M'tl, ®^l<1'|(o,[®|dl-LIIJ,<. .LC'.^.L^)^^ -^^f' 1 •^ 20(3 Sd^T'T^? ('jqt^'tS?!) TOiTWdftd 3)I^f SB: Hon'bie Shri Manindra Moh 13-05.2011 Shri B.P.Rao, counsel for th< The grievance of the petitie entitled Tor family pension in vi® (Annexure P/3), the petitioner has petitioner submits that before ttiel various documents including mark| without making proper enquiry w| authority has written in its reply absence of required documents matter could not be placed before It therefore appears that thf competent authority even though) certificates and documents. Ther respondent No.2 to forward th< documents, affldavits and certifl consideration of the grievance of] shouid hold enquiry and if it is policy of the Centrat Governmentj extended. In case, the result ofl petitioner, the petitioner would bej may be availabte to him under the With the aforesaid observatifc Sil^fdll-i tlWcfl' if fe%t <pi)^|< ^siRmaii^t h Shrivastava, J. \ petnioner. ^er is that even ttiough Uie petitioner is ^fi of policy of the Central Govemment been denied. Learned counset for the lauthorities, the petitioner had submitted 1 sheets showing date of birth. However, Ith regard to the same, the respondent (o the notice da.ted 15/12/09 that in the frsued from the competent auttiority, the ie competent authority. matter has not been placed before the the petitioner ciaimed on ttie basis of ijefore, it would be proper to direct the case of the petitioner atong with all fcates to the competent authority for the petitioner. The competent authority ftjund that the petittoner is covered by the the benefit for family pension should be enquiry and the decision is against the at tiberty to take recourse to remedy, as vw. >ns, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge