^ 10<3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. ^ ^17—/ 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^'' ^^; ^./y^- Gwalin Bai Sahu, W/o. Late Punarad Ram Sahu, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Aamatalab, Ramsagarpara Sharadha Nagar Dhamatari Distt-Dhamatari (C.G.) VERSUS , 1. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Dhamtari, Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.), 3. Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Dhamtari, Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. IV ^) HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Jlustice Pritfnker Diwaker) W.P^.No. 8912 of 2011 Petitioners Gwalin Bai Sahu VERSUS Respondent Managfng Direotor, Chhattlsgarh State Power Distribution Present: Shri R.S. Patel, counsel for petitjoner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, who normalty appears for respondents, present in the Court is directed to appear for respondents. ORDJR (23.11.2011) Grievance ofthe petitioner is that the s@n of the p^ltjoner namely Late Parmulat, who was an employee of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, died on 02.09.2002 duringservice but ttil date,she has not beenprovjded family pension.. 2. Learned counsel for the petitloner submits that purp<^e of fillng ofthis petition would be served ffa direGtlon Js jssoed to ftte Chhattisgarh State Power Dlstributlon Company to dedde the pending representatlon dated 03.10.2010 ofthe petitioner. 3. Shri Sinha submjts that let the petKJoner make a fresh representation to Chhattisgarh State Power Distributjon Company through respondent No.2 and in tum, (he same shall be decided in accordance wtth law consldering the fact as to whether the petitfoner jsentitled to receive the family pension or not. \ 4. The present petition js disposed of with a dfrection to the petitioner to ffle a fresh representatlon fo Chhatti^arh State Power DJstrSbution Company through respondent No.2 wlthinfcwo weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in tum, the competent authority shall decide the said representation in accordance with law as early as posslble preferably wtthin a period ofthree months. 5. It is made clear that this Court has n^ expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representatton strtetly in accordance with law. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge