a3.s:'?^^ F=? r/'%^^€^ 'MK* E;; H;-K^. (B »*tf: ;_B<i» 1N THE 1-liGH CQ{.t^ @V WHArTlSQARtt A^^^^^^ WRIT PETITION [51 N0. gS^- /2009 PEtITlON6R: /S.S. Mishra, son of Shri Angad Mishra, aged about 65 yedrs, resident of In front of Electricity Office, AAainpura, Tehsil Pandaria, District Kabirdham (C6) Vs KESPON&Ehn'S: ^>^ ^A-^ S*' !].„ / I. State of Chhattisgarh Thr'Ough; the Secretary, &eparttTierit 6f Mealth <& Family Welfare, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur. /2. The Secretdr'y, Departme|it of Seneral Adniinistr'gtion, t).K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. y3. 1-ligh Power Retiral Dues C6 tnm ittee, Rdi pur. •^4. The Chief Medical A Health Officer, Kawai-dha, District Kdbirdham (CG). 5. The Accouritant Seheral, C h hatt i sgar h, Pag.ar i a Comp 1 ex, Pandri, Raipur. WRIT PETn-ION VNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TME CONSTITUTION OF INblA 1. PARTICULAR (SlF TME PET'rTlONER: As showh in the caus6 title-___ -^<' HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 627 of2009 PETmONER : S.S.Mishra. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA 8B: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aemhotri, J. Present: Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for tfae State/respondent No. 1 to 4. Shri Anand Verma, Advocate forthe respondent No. 5. ORUERfORAL) (Passed on 3 laday of March, 2010) 1. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity ofthe order dated 23.07.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the High Power Committee, constitutedibr resohdng the disputes with regard tolretiral dues. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Cormnittee has reeorded a finding that the petitioner has drawn a sum ofRs. 1500/- in June, 1981 and Rs. 16,000/- in August, 1989, which is contrary to the certificate dated 24.09.2009 (Annexure P/6) issued by the Block Health QflGcer, Pandariya, District Kabirdham to fhe effect that no amount has been withdrawn in the monlfa ofAugust, 1989 and further, the letter dated 13.08.2009, whereby it has been infonned that no amount has been Withdrawn by the petitioner in the month of June, 1981. Thus, the staid taken by the Committee and the Block Health QfBcer, Pandariya are contrary. 3. In view ofthe above, it is expedient and proper that the ofGce ofthe Accountant General should consider the above documents issued by the Block Health OfiGcer, Pandariya, where fhe petitioner was posted and, thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with iaw, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period offbur weeks. 4. . With the aforesaid, observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Amit Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotn Judge