1^ l-:r-.)r^0^\ ^ ^. ^^•^ ^^Stefr ai^ftg^-- c^ o^- y^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P fS^ No. ^^ /2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Shiv Kumari Pandey, W/o. Gauri Shankar Pandey, aged about 63 years, R/o. Azad Chowk, Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. TheSecretary/Member, High Power Committee Retiral Benefit and Pension Committee, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Accountant General, Pagariya Complex, Raipur, District Raipur 4. Block Education Officer, Block- Pendra-Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1 ^"^-' /y •:;^-,,-.. 1»NNNI» H8GHCQURTOFCHHATTiSGARH:Bil.ASPUR PETjTJQNER RESPONDENTS WRiT PETITION (S) N0.797 OF 2009 Shiv Kumari Pandey Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of indla) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. Present:- 1. 2. Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Shri KashifShakeei, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shrs Safya Narayan Panda, District Education Officer present In the Court. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 15th day of March, 2011) Heard iearned counse! for the partses. By this petition, the petitioner seeks for quashment of the order dated 31/10/2008 (Annexure P/1) and further seeks a direction to the respondent No.3 to pay the baiance G.P.F. amount to the petitioner with interest. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submsts that the petitioner was Initially appointed on the post of Asslstant Teacher m the year1974 and retired from service on attainlng the age of superannuation on 30/06/2004. According to the petitloner, when the retiral dues were not received by her within time, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.2674/2007 wherein, this Court directed the respondent No.2 to dectde the case of the petitioner within the stipuiated period. Thereafter, the respondent authorities by order dated 31710/2008 communicated the decision of the Pension Committee (for short "the Committee") dated 01/10/2008 by which the Committee obseived that ail the retiral dues have been paid to the petttloner. However, the Comniittee dlrected the office of the Accountent I(»IN»^ 6. 8. Generai to release the pending retiral dues, if any. Leamtd counseS further submits that the respondent authorities, white passing the jmpugned order, have not al all appreciated the facts and cjrcumstences ofthe case. Even before passing the impugned order proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. Thus, this petitlon. On the other hand, Jearned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2674/2007 the case of the petitioner was considered and decided after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitloner. On the basis of material available on record, the claim of the petstioner has been partly allowed by directing the office of the Accountant Generai to release the pending retiral dues. Learned counse! further submits that no amount is ieft for pavnnient at this stage. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.perused the pieadings and the documente appended thereto. The Committee has passed the order dated 01/10/2008 by Qiving detai!ed reasons on the basis of the materiai placed before ttiem. From the impugned order, it appears that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and even the son of the petitioner has also appeared before the Committee. The petitioner has falled to establish the fact that under which head, the retlrai dues are outstanding with the respondent department. Thus, the impugned order is just, proper and does not warrant any Interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is Uabie to and is hereby dismissed. No order asto coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge