T X 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT or CHHATTISGARH AT BILAspUR (c.G.) w.P. (S) No. ?’L?§ or 2009 PETITIONER Vikram Kumar Kar, S/o Slugzemh / Kar, aged about 65 years, Retired Head Master, Government Middle School, Kolda, Block—Pithora, District—Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS ' K ESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, R Mahasamund, District— Mahasamund (C.G.) District Education Mahasamund (C.G.) 5. Block Education Officer, Pithora, District—Mahasamund (C.G.) Officer, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i Through : Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. \k%\wf‘ ‘k Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 9?' 2 Accountant General, Pagaria Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) TwoHi». 3. { Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, HIGH COURT GF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 7273 0f2009 PETITIONER : Vikram Kumar Kar. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETXTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, 5. Present: Shri Prateek Shanna: Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, 13am} Lawyer for the State/respondents 1, 3 to 5. Shri R.Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 14 day of December, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Learned counsel appearing for e petitioner submits that the case, being th payment of retira benefits matter, may be referred to the pension l committee. 2. This Court, in the matter of W.P. o. 642/2004 (Baynath IWandal v. The N 4 Stare of Cimmsgarh d2 Others) and other connected matters, directed the h Committee to consider the matte of retiral dues as the disputed question of r facts we involved. The Committee was constituted by the State re Government, pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2006 passed in WP. No. 1961/2006 (Smt. Keja Bai Chandrakar Vs. State Government and others) and order dated 13.03.2008 passed in M.C.C. N0. 105 of 2008 (Stare of Chhattz'sgarh & Others v. Bazj'nath Mandel and another). Thus, this petition is squarely covered by thjudgment'and order dated 31$ of January, 2008 e pasd in WP. No. 4642/2004 Baijnaz‘k Mandel (supra) as suhrnitted by se Iearned counsel appearing or the parties. f 3. With ths consent of the parties, this yetition is accordingly disposed of in the same tenns i.e. the office of the Advocate General is directed to send the case to the Committee, within a period of 15 days from ihe date of receipt of a copy of the petiiion from the petitioner and ihis order. Thereaiier, the Committee shail issue notice to the petitioner and the otticers concemed, within a further period of 15 days. The Committee shall consider and pass order: in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner and the officers ccerned may tile additiona} documents, if necessary. The entire exercise, includig payment of retiral dues, if any, to the petitioner be completed witin a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this h order. wwxww. The petitiner shall suppiy extra copy ofthe petition to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents for forwarding the same to the Committee. l , ‘ Sd/~ l ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri: l. 1 2. Judge on n o