"s'^^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. //? (^ /20M PETITIONER x^ y \3*^y/ .^^f/ J^// ^>''^l<-y ^ >»'" [<? RESPONDENTS ^ /.^ ^<€^^' /: Ramlochan Pandey aged about 65 years, S/o Late Shri K.P. Pandey R/o. Village-Beltukari Post Office- Ganiyari Tahsil - Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^"i. Accountant General of Chhattisgarh (?andari Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) /3. District Education Officer Bilaspur (C.G.) /4. Block Education Officer Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA ,xP^ ^^\^ XI-HC-78 Sn^T^iTf^TR? (IW3I1^Tst>l[°h N HWWI sb*11<h 3^ •*ii<iici<i, <?Tntf'is, RKnray . ^ 1^& ?0^ 'f' 3ii^i>i isitn (ytg'5"^) s^ireTHflcrsn^T 4-5-2006 variolis Shri Ashok Swarnakar, Shri Prashant Mishra, A<| Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the| l-1eard. By this petition under Arti) submitted that the petitioner retir^c amount the Accountant Genj 31-12-2004 issued authorizatidn No.4/Block Education Officer, Ta| respondent No.4 inspite of the petitioner. tt is submitted representations before the conc^r apparent from Annexure-P/7A. he was admitted in the hosptel| hernia operation, but the operati{)n which is evident from Annexure-PI/4. It is settled principle of laW e.g. Pension, Gratuity, GIS, F^r Arrears of Pay, Fwation ete. imttie paid GPF which is his amount imjne The Hon'ble Supreme Coi|i State ofKerala and offiieiyys. codnsel for the SC 356 and Vilav L Mehrotr^ f2001) 9 SCC 687. In the case of Vflav L. l^ held that in case of an emptoye]e ovpartar) fhat all thp paympnts nl <t>i<<fi'i41-f xiidTffrs'^ <Ri«i< ^STl^TSn^T petitioner. Iditional Advocate Generat with Shri Satish State. ilcle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, it is ^d on 31-7-2003 and for final payment ofGPF ^ral Office as per Annexure-P/1 dated tetter fn the name of the respondent (thatpur, but the amount was not drawn by the applications and representations made by that the petitioner submitted so many jrned authorities for his retiral dues, which is the period, the petitioner became illand where the Doctors advised him to undergo could not be performed for want of funds, D(Jring that an employee must get atl the retiral dues ^mily Welfare Benefits, Leave Encashment, imttiediatety after his retirement. He should be imjnediately and there shoutd be no delay at all. irt dealt with the similar matter in the cases of M. Padmanabhan Nair reoorted in AIR 1985 vs. State of U.P. and otftere reported in Mehrotra (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court retiring after having rendered senrices, it is the retiral beneflts should be paid on the date 'w® v^s. XI-HC-78 HIHWiaWT^ TSS^WvFf, »Tflwis,fa??T(?y, _ p^ "^^ * 311^14tl«fc('i^t^""^) sn^Tqirf^frai (CT31WI S*>t<l» wiTwnfetTsn^r ^ An cafee dfeteited of retirement or soon thereafyr payments could not be made entitled for interest and in that This Court has passed 25/2005 (arising out of W.P.N^. ChhaMsaaffi & Ottieis) and ir^ order dated 3-2-2006. The authorization letter but the origii|al the retiral benefits. The petitictier before the concemed authorities,! ca$e S.No. 1. Date |To whom appllttrtion is made 29-1-2005 ! Blol 2. I 3-2-2005 Btot 3. 4. 5. 6. 8-6-2005 7. 8. s. 10. 11 12. 13. 14 15. 27-6-2005 4-7-2005 Suii 28-7-2005 i Disl 24-10-2005 iSr. 10-10-2005 23-10-2005 10-12-2005 16, j 23-11-2005 [ Col^cfo^Silaspyr 17. 18. 19. 20. 29-11-2005 I Disl 10--1-200S j Col|eotor, Biiaspur *l<lfd*fl") HIHfill'ffteAiRi'KK ' ^ sri^Tsn^r if for some unforeseen circumstances the the date of retirement. The person is atso an interest atthe rate of 18% was gwen. orders from time to time. In M.C.C.No. .1372/2003 Smt. Sahodra Bai vs. State af W.P.No. 1393/2004 this Court has passed an in hand the petitioner had been gh/en fhe was not sent, therefore, he could not draw has submitted so many representations the details <rfthe same are gh/en below: ;k Education Officer, Tald'iatpur ;k Education Officer, Takhatpur 17-5-2005 | Biojik Educatjon Offiqer, Takhatpur 7-6-2005 | Ad^itional Coiiector, Bllaspur 7-6-2005 j B!o(;k Education Officer, Takhatpur Divisional OfRcer, Kota District Education Offlcer, Bilaspur Dis(rict Education Officer, Bilaspur rict Education Officer, Bilaspur 31-8-2005 j Adijlitional Collector, Bilaspur 8-9-2005 | Dis(rict Education Officer, Bilaspur Geitieral Accourrts CTficer, O/o Accountant Raipur Le^a! Aid Officer, Bilaspur. Pertsion Adaiat. Pedsion Adalat. 24-11 -2005 I 810<;K Educatton Offlcer, TaKhatpur irict Edycation Offlcer, Bilaspur 10-1-2006 i Disjrict Education Officer, Bjlaspur XI-HC-78 an^T^rf^ri^ traTsn^TspTw v-._-- Gowri ^ 35? •^ll'iild^l, STflwis, Rowy *11*1MI 5h*11«i ;.J^f.J15kJ^^ 200 3<1^!»1ysl* ('icltd'!'S.'sr) ^tiWHfersn^T •3>- pericjd 20106 During the aforesaid get himself operated as advised made out needing a probe. Shri R.R. Yadav, Block had personally visited the office| authorization letter dated 28-2-2011 pendency of this peh'tion, on deposted in fhe petitioner's a( Takhatpur. Learned counsel for fhe tetter was issued on 31-12-20041 authorization tetter, the amount without any fault being attributed In view of the submissior) and keeping in view the law laic| cases of State ofKerafa (supra)| is entiUed to interest at the 31-12-2004 to 28-2-2006. Before parting, ends ofjus) concemed authorities to conduct paymentjo Ihe petitioner and weeks from the date of receipt/pf report be submitted to the Regisfr^ Accordingly, the petition is Counseffee Rs.1000/-, ifc< Copy to State counsel. the petttioner fell ill and he couid not even ^y the Doctors. Prima facie, a case has been *i<iTd41-( *<iti<'fT¥rs'<!l<Ritei< ^sri^rsn^T Epucation Officer, Takhatpur, informed that he |of the Accountant Generai and thereafter the ' was issued. He also submitted that during |!5-3-2006 a cheque has been issued and a(scount bearing No.2308 of Central Bank, [petitjoner pointed out that the authorization I but till 28-2-2006 i.e. till issuance of another 4ould not be paid for one reason or Uie other <t> the petitioner. made by leamed counsel for the petitioner dcwn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the jand Vilav L Mehrotra (supra), the petitioner r^te of 6% per annum for the period from juspce witl be sen/ed if a direction is given to the |an enquiry wth regard to delay in making the i|e same be completed within a period of six toduction of a copy of this order and enquiry (Judicial) of ttiis Court for pemsal. ^llowed with coste. fertifled. thb rtr ( Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge