ApDlicant (Petitioner) ?"K- Respondents Contemnors COURT OF CHHATTiSOARH: BILASPUR ContemBt Pstition No. ^2 of2)07 Smt. Swapna Lahiri, aged about 66 years, wife of Shri' A. K. Lahiri, occupation - retired Govemment Sewant, resident of Godripara, Chirmiri, District Korea (CG). Versus 1) Dr. K.D.P. Rao, Secretary / Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Campus of Government Science College, Raipur. 2) S. Anjali Shukia, Additlonal Director, Higher Education Department; Campus of Govemment Scienoe College, Ralpur. 3) Dr. Arti Tiwari, Principal, Government Lahiri College, Chirmiri, District Korea (CG). (Application under Section 12 of the Contempt Coyrts Act) SB:Hon'bteiVlr. SaUsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri IndrasenSahu, counsel forthe petitloner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate Genera! for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on ^" February, 2008) (1) By this petition, the petitioner, who has retired from service on 30.06.2003, is claiming retiral beneflts. (2) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that on 19.W.2006 in W:P. No. 1961/2006 (Smt. Keja Bai Chandrakar Vs. State Government of Chhattisgarh and others), this Court passed thefollowing order: "..... in turn, the A.G. Office is getting incorrect informatiorrand not able to give authority letter.at the time of retirement of an employee, therefore, a committee consisting oTfoliowing offioers is constituted: (1) Special Secretary (Finance), (Chairman), (2) Any officer of the rank of Additional Secretary of Law Department, (Member), ' (3) Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, (Member), (4) Deputy Accountant General (Funds), (Member), v 'ipl. (5) Joint Secretary (General Administration Department, State of Chhattlsgarh), (Men'iberoum Secretary)" (3) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that pursuant to the above order a Committee, consisting of the above-stated ofRcere has been constituted to look irto the grievances of the retired employees, in respect of retiral dues. (4) Learned counsel appearing for the State further submit that the said Committee is in existence and all the dlsputes, raised by the petitioner in this petition, may be decid«l by the said high power Committee, withtn prescribed time. (5) In this petition, the disputed question of Tacts with regard to the retiral dues (supra) are involved, which cannot be decided by thjs Court, as frie disputed questlons of facts can be resolved by the high power committee (supra) in oonsultation with the retired employee and the concemed officere. Thus, 1 am of the considered opinion that it would be Just and ©(pediento direct the above Committee, so constituted, to look into the disputes and pass appropriate ordere, in accordance withiaw. (6) Accordingiy, the office ofthe Advocate General is .directed to send the case to the Committee, within a period of 15 days frem the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Committeeshalt issue notice to the aggrieved retired employee and the ofFicere concemed, within a further period of 1S days. The Committee shall consKler and f^^.order, in accordance with law, sfter affording proper opportunity of hearing to the employee. The employee ooncemed and the officers eoncerned may file additionat doouments, if necessary: The entire exercise, including payment of retiral dues (supra), If any, to the petltioner, be comptetej withina period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (7) lnviewoftheforegoing,thepetition isdisposedof. No oider asto costs. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Asnihotri Judge