^c<?V IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN No?5 9/2003 PETITIONER .A^^^ ^^?^!^*"' >^. ^•;::»^>'-"' VERSUS /Li, 2 Dr.lndira Chelani Aged about 52 years W/0 Dr. S.K. Chelani R/0 Lal Bag, Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Public HealthMedical Education and Family Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AND OTHER WRITS AND DIRECTIONS: s^- 67 ^i^^i^'n^ ^w|T^lli||^,^-a1^i«i<o,Rcl)wy<< rfai,......LO;.p;..^.r.^y..%.,,..,^^200 3n^F'5RT(^r|J<b^ ^Wl^ ^lsft^w \" 3n^?T^i^(l^l^cES); 10.11.2005 The petitipner has ^Tsyfc^'TWir^T^r^StxRrt^ix ^3Tf^rgn^T ^ Petitionerby Shri.J]|tendra PaU, Advpcate. Respondents by Sh^i Pankaj Shrivastava, Paael lawyer. [fUed tliis petition seekmg direction agaiast the respondents ^r makuig payments ofpensionaiy benefits due to flie petj The respondents N<j 6.12.2004 whereia ia p^ |tioner mcludmg aU consequeutial benefits w.e.f. 1.6.1999 -s^ith interest at the rate of 18% per aanuin. . 1 aad 2 have ffled theu' rcply on i-11 tilie respondents liave accepted the entitlement of the peti|ioner of retiral benefits m foUowing tenns. "As the impiigned ^ction ofthe State is out come ofa clerical mistake^ it is ^ petitioner is entitled aU tjtie retiral benefits, treatiag her as havmg retii'ed voliuitary w^ In view of the adm] survives m fhe 'matter ail th effect from 31.5.1999". issioii of fhe respondents, nofliiag d the respondents are directed to period oftwo months from| Wifli regard tb the] respondents No, 1 aad 2 ^ ubmitted fhat m substaace fhe release all'the pensionajy benefits due to the petitioner includmg aU consequenti^l benefits w.e.f. 1.6.199 withia a [today. mterest learaed coiinsel for flie [iutomits that smce the respondents have admitted and agreed for payment of pensionary benefits, no Hiterest should be graa^ed. vjw| •^tl4l^4, lPTrl^l<l<S, IqWl^t^X t^^ 3^"3-^/03 *11*W)I^»TT<1» r^|200 3TI^T?PTf^N HW3iT^^Tw+licp -ft^t-/ 3n^5Tq^P(I^f^R?) ?^Tt^R^Ra 3TI^^T -2L- clisadv^ntage Haviag regard to case, wheii tfie petitioaer| reason to deny fhe hiterf which became due long b| paid withia a reasonabl^ fhe petitioner to a could xiot enjoy fhe at the tinie of retirenieut. to the iaterest at fhe ratel tlie paynient is made. Inviewofthe Certified cppy, as p^ ainoitnt (he fd^ts and circuinstaaces of fhe was retired on 1,6.1999 fhere is IK) *st to fhe petitioner 011 fhe amoiint tick. The pension ought to have been period. The respondents have put ^ntageous position and the petitioner which she was entiUed to receive ^ccordiagly, fhe petitioner is entifled |of9%per annum from 1.6.1999 tm foi-egc|mg cbl^|f^417T^l^^fe^ <<Rn^ix ^3ri^T3TT^5T iug, the petition is aUowed. r Rules, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge SR/FS/2005-20,000 ^ ^ (.^ ^ S8