HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTiSGARttAEBtLASPUR WritPe{itiohYSVNo./3363of2008 Petitioner Versus Respondente 1. Smt Maya Devi Sonwani, Wd/o.Late Bhiipat La! Sonwani, aged about 40 years, R/o Villags jftmapara, Balod Post-Balod, Tshsil Baiod, District- Duig (C.Gj State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur C.G. ' :' :.: . . • 2. Enginegr in Ghief, Publte Worte Ctepartmsnt.Raipur,C.G. 3. Chief Ehgiheer, Public Works De{rartment,Raipur,C,(3. 4. Executive Enginaer, Public Works Department, Balod Dlvision, Dlstrict Durg.C.G. WRIT PETITOINUNDERARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTSTOTION OF INDiA Singte Behch ; Hon'bls Mr. SatishK. Agnihotri, J. •e ^K. ShriAlokDevangan.Advocateforthepetttioner. Shri ^jay Dwivedi,Oeputy Govt. Advocate forthe respondents. ORALORDER (Passsd onihis 1stday ofJuty, 2Q08) Wrth the consent oflearned counsel appearing forthe parties the matter is heardfinally. Learned counsel appearing for the pefifioner submits ttiat the husband of ttie petitipner wasworking as Typist in e Public Works Qepartment since 1987. He was posted in the office of the £xecutiv6 Engineer, Balod Division, Disfaiet Durg. The services of the petitioner's husband was regularzed vide qrder dated 31.12.19S3. The p6Btioner^ husband died on 18A2000. Thus.lhe pstitioner, being wife of late Bhupat Lal Sonwani, is entitled to grant of family pension on account of death of her husband. J: .i^:w^^.^^^£sMi^^^^^ '2 Learned counsel further submite U*iat the question of law asto whettier the pstitioner is enfitted to family pension or not is welt settled bythis Court in ths matter of M. A. Hakim Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now C.G.) and othersCA/rit PeCtion No; 4135/2004), wherein this Gourt has passed the order on 28.82006, ailowring the petition. It is next tontended that e State Govt. has preferred Special Leave PstiBon N0. 19728/2006 before the Hon'bls Supreme Court asainst the sajd order dated 28.8.2006 and the same was dismissed 6n 8.12.20)6. Leamed counsel appearing forthe respondents/State submits that ttie quesfion of lawinvolved in tWs petition is ktenfical to that of inthe matter of M.A.Hakim (Supra). He further submte that the petffion be allotred subjectto verification offacts. !n view of thsforegoing, ffie writ petitioh standsdisposedofinthesame terms i.e. admissibte pension shal! be reteased within a period of two monthsfromtoday, asthehusbandoftheisetitionerhasdiedlongbaek on 18.4.2CKK}. Noorderasto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agniltotri Judge Thakur ^y.-