^.=^SK£ri^t-^ c .^ tfR'Ee" WfS^ e^&,,^ t^iiuS'silj INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (S) N0. S34 J /2006 R.S. Mahanande, S/o- Late Shri Ram Bharosa Mahanande, Aged about 54 years, R/o- "Matri Mahima", E-17, Gayatri Nagar, P.0. Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER l". ^f :?. 5. VERSUS Food Corporation oflndia, Through- Managing Director, Head Quarter - New Delhi, 16-20 Barakhamba Lane, NEWDELffl. .\ -.<-'^t •^ . ^v\>:sy^ /$^p-"" .^y- ?" ^ ' 2. The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, Dhiraj Arma Building, Near Anant Kanekar Police Station, Bandra (East) MUMBAI-400051. 3. The General Maaager, Food Corporation of India, Ring Road Choiiraha, Telibandha, Raipiir, CUiattisgarh. 4A> TheAreaManager, Food Corporation oflndia, Madeena Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Through- Commissioner, Regional Office, 8 & 9ra Floor. Mayur Bfaawan, Coruiaught Circus, NewDelhi-1. RESPONDENTS !6/: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRiATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARJETC, XI-HC-22 3^''<<iqi0<l, 8IT(1t1'IS, l^cfl'yy .^.U^/3.r^lL^ *<l«(MTa)Hiq) [qO«S sn^rqir fqqWSTI^T 9>wn tilsn Wfi Ban'e ^ ^ ^ 3TI^?T TOIRR <Tf??T )-7-2006:- Heard Shri Pankaj Shrivasta^j The case of the petitioner is necessary particulars to respond^nt from the salary of the petitioner in pension. From perusal of the petiti^n, petition, the petitioner has not deli\|i to the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the p( Clause 17 of the Empioyees' Pensj fix the pension within a period of 3 i|i the petitioner had retired in the moitth lapse of about one year 6 months fixed. Accordingly, the petitionei| representation along with a copy <ji within a period of 10 days and irj examine points raised by the petf: pension to respondent No.5 within] receipt of representation. With the direcfion aforesaid, Consequently, i.A. No.6569/F Parties are entitled for certifil »ni<iFci<flill*(<lTffte^i'<Rl«K ^sri^Tan^r I'a, counse! for the petitioner. . (hat respondent No.1 is not forwardinc ^nt No,5 regarding deductions made >rder to enable respondent No.5 to fix i, it appears that before fiiing this (ered any notice for demand ofjustice ^titioner submitted that according to jon Scheme respondents are bound to Inonths from the date of retirement and of December, 2004. Even after the (iension of the petitioner has not been is directed to make a this petition to the respondent No.1, turn, respondent No.1 is directed to ioner and forward papers relating to a period of 45 days from the date of Vhe petition stands disposed of. '006 also stands disposed of. dcopy of this order.. Sdl- L.C. W-'saeo Judge (<ft^y^)