^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU^E^T BILASPUR (C.G.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS \Q ^ ^: -..?^ ^ y W.P.NO. ...............^,3.^..y../2001 Shri A.K. Khan (Rt. Head Clerk Divisional Workshop M.P.S.R.T.C. Bilaspur (C.G.) S/o .L..^.€..$.^:./a,^.J<k^ Aged about 59 years R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1 .^ Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (M.P.S.R.T.G.) Through its M.D. Bhopal (M.P.) 1C? The Divisional Manager, M.P.S.R.T.C. Bilaspur (C.G.). The Divisional Accounts Officer, M.P.S.R.T.C. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Divisional Technical Manager, M.P.S.R.T.C. Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OFINDIA. r-^- ^—^ ^^:^ XI-HC-22 STI^T^T R^i<=h ^^\ 5h^i<=h ^if^a ~5^T -^I^M^ ^•d1^jl<o, f^^l^y WR^tT^RI^ air^r ^s^^ ^.p,... '^ 200 / '^^8T' 3TT^T ^^n^R: ^rf^cT 10/13/2001 :- Petitionerby ShriP| Respondent by Shril Heard. The petitioner in service. He is yet to receivei receipt of retiral benefits the facing great financial hardship. payment of retiral benefits can stated at the Bar time and agai duty of the competent authorit the oniy reason 6very time that 29/08/2001 Which is said to be the department for tiie purpose ^j14l<ri41-r1 'RPToTf ^ 'fe^t ';d^R?R ^T^ST^R STi^T K- Das, Advocate, DhirendraMishrG, Advocate. this petition has retired from his rstira! benefits. &ue to non petitioner and his dependants are A prayer has been made that |iot be debyed inasmuch as it is th@ right of the petitioner to recfeive such benefits. It has been h that Et is no bounty and it is the \f to pay retiral benefits. One and is piaced before this Court is that the department is facing w*fe finbncial crunch. •^ Shri Dhirendro fAi^ra, leamed counsei appearing for the Department draws my aftention to the document dated scheme which has been evoived by of payment of retiral benefits to the employees who has sinc®ret red. The scheme proposes to make payment of Rs.5,000/- to thejemployees of ^rade-I and II and Rs.3,000/- to the employees of ^rade-.FCE and IV per month. f^irfe^ ^£^s"~^?"^""?^r~ ^?- ^TT^T'^T 'f^;it^-3?T^l ^HNTTrit^ -3T[i^T 'q^^ ( ^f^^T ) 37T^T T^T^R ^lt^ ^N^f^T'RTR^ff ^ f^St I?^R?R '^^Tf^TR'W^T It has been ^ontended by the counsel representing the Petitioner that the petitic^ner should b©poiid at Jeast to begin with a reasonable lump sum. After giving submissions made on behc|if of the parties, I am of the opinion 1nat since sooner or later the caused to the employee of Rs.25,000/- within tw^ my anxious consideration to the various ^espondent must pay whatevcr is "Sue to the retired employee and al^ taking into consideration the hwd^m n the absence of payment of any^Tefira! benefits to him after he ^JGS retired from service, it will be just, fair and reGSonable to djrect fhe respondent to pay th©petitioner a sum months from the date of receipt of -riiis order. Thereafter I dire^l- that the respondents shall make payment i1 strictly in accordance with the scheme^ that has been piaced before Whatever amount has been this Court until J+ie last j^aisa b ^l^t^ . ! .. /: , - paid'A' in accordance with the direction of this Count shall be adjusted. N With the aboJ/e directions and observations, thi^petition is disposed of . On fdlur^ to pay tiie money os directed above within the stipulated time the p4t'itioner shall stand entitied to the payment of interest at 1+ie rate of ^S% per annum< Registry. Let the corripliance report be submitted before this Certified copyJ of this order be supplied cxs per ruies. <^r\ ^RPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50,000. Sd/- Chief Justice ^^ ^ ^