^"•''•: •xt' ... - '• 7C G^BE^I^ ep. fcn/, IN THE HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR VIRIT PETITION N0. -^<54t) /20Q6 PETITIONER ^ ^•- . 9(?.<- ^ ^•;^sv ^y RESPONDENTS Prabha Choubey W/o Late Anil Kumar Choubey Aged about 44 years, R/o Raingudi Para, Mishra Gali, Tahsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS A. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through: The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) /I. The Joint Director, Treasuries Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Ofiicer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ^4. The Block Education Officer, Sarangarh, District- RaigarhfC.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITISI OR ORDERtSt OR DIRECTIONISt K XI-HC-78 *<l*^^ll sh^llch 3^''qplT?ra', e'Tn+i'is, (sfciiyy ..^^M.4^200^ w^\ y^* (yit^q^ff) sn^rqiTR.fitti (raTSn^Tsbtli'h ^l' ^awHfersn^T 10-8-2006 Rls theredfter Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel for Mr. Sumesh Bqjcy, 6pvt. |advance copy. l-1eard both the counsel. By this writ petition under Ar-tf the petitioner has challen9ed the |whsreby recovery to the effect of Ipetitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband initial| |Tax (Excise) Department and l&eportment. The appointment of thj jthat the petitioner's husband shall Ipassirq the Hindi typing test and in Ithen he sha!l continue to draw the to»»| Learned counsel for the |to 9iveconsent for deduction of the her husband, as the same is not betitioner died in harness on 17-1-20( ^ubmits that the respondents be d jaenefits of the petitioner's |is.63,752/- to which Mr. Baijty, iearn^ Havin9 heard tearned counsel faets and circumstaaices of the case, Dhe Advocate icle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, irder dated 13-3-2006 (Annexure P-7), s.63,752/- hos beenordered against the petiti^ner' bein9 pcrid 20(32 husbhnd »Rrafepft^WRffffte^t rfSregr ^Slf^TSn^T petitioner. for the Stote/respondents, on |y entered as Salesman in the Commercial ', he was absorbed in the Education petitioner's husband was to the effect be entitted for increments onty after tase he will not be able to pass the test, sr salary. submits that the petitioner is ready Isaid amount from the retiral benefits of since 2002 when the husband of the !. Therefor'e,leamed counsel further (rected to sanction and pay the retiral after deducting the amount i.e. ^d 6ovt. Advocate has no objection. for the parties and hcwing re9ard to the (he respondents are directed to expedite P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3sr ^ww^, wS\wi<a, Ricii'y^ mwn sh<<ich Mr:.^.^!^ 200^ aTT^?riraq7 (^3^r) 3Ti^T^rR-ii+ gsiT3n^Tsti*ii<ti <..' \ '% '•''• '. I-'> T: Soma -<Q: ^ the case of the petitioner's husban^ pension after deducting the amount and pass appropriate order regardfn^ period of three months from the dolte accor'dance with law. With the direction aforesaid, 1fie Conseqwntly, M.(W.)P.No.315i|/2006 Parties are entitled for certifiid gRtTwgferan^r ^rafepfrr iTOcrr'ffte^ <l"R3ir ^lSri^FTSn^T for poyment of retiral dues and family ^f Rs.63,752/- from the retiral benefits family pension and other dues within a of receipt of a copy of this order, in petitjon stands disposed of. also stands disposed of. copy of this order. L.C. Bhadoo Jiidge P.T.O. V"