C/Q’W PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The above named Petitioner begs to qihmjt ac “aw VERSUS /1. Smt. Bindu Soni Wd/o Late Kamal Kishore Soni, aged about .45 years R/o Village & Post Jagannathpur, Thana & Tehsil Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Water Resources Department. D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur, C.G. Engineer in Chief, Water Resources . Depa rtment Civil Line Raipur, C.G. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar Raipur, C.G. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department V/Y Light Machinery, Borewell & Gate division Durg, District Durg, C.G. BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETIT10N(S) No. Liagg /2o1o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4036 of 2010 PETlTlONER Smt. Bindu Soni VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhatlsgarh and others i i i i i ir l i i i Shrl Satyendra Sahu counsel for the petitioner ’ . Shrl Pravm Das Dy GA for th‘ respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.09.2010) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that her? husband Iate Kama! Kishore Soni was appointed as Bore Well Operator In Water Resources Department m the year 1986 and was posted in the office of respondent No 4 Further case of the petitioner is that her husband was regularized as Work Charged Contingency Paid Employee on , 13.8.2008 Le. after putting about 22 years of service and was also granted regular pay s with the said date itself but the respondents have wrongly den the family penSIon to her 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in View of the various depismns of this Court including the one in the matter oi M.A. Hakim v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhatisgarh) and others passed in WP No 4135/2004 in which this Court had passed the order on 28 8 2006 allowmg the petition subject to the . ‘ :Verification of facts. lt is next submitted that the State Government has preferred Special Leave Petition before t Supreme Court against the order dated 28.8.2006 which w dismissed on 8 12 200p 3} 3. Counsel for the respondents/State very fairly submits that it) question of law involved in the petitlon being identical to the deCISIons in various cases including one in the matter of MA i i t iw i M q i " o " ie, h a. H o f ‘ akim (supra) would be considered by the respondents subject t erification of facts. 4. in Vlew of above the petition Is disposed of in the sam erms such as admiSSible penSIon shall be released Within eriod of three months from the date of receipt of copy of th rder. Ip §i I . It is made clear that the respondents/authorities would he suitable order after verification of the facts. Sdl— Pritinker Diwaker v e” t fo 5 pa‘ t E