c^\ a-a Petitioner ;&K' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (sl No. ^3^ 5 /£U2007 ^/^ ^w ..•'/ ltk'J<?..y ^i^y' ."-^y. •^- .-'' Shrimati Bafat Begum, Widow of late Mohd Rahman, aged abouf 59 years, R/o Quarter no. MIG 140 Maharana Pratap Nagar Korba P.0 & District Korba Versus Respondents ^Ay !<' Chhattisgarh state Electricity Board through ifs secretary C.S.E.B.Raipur Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G) 2;'^ The Chief Engineer (Generation ) C.S.E.B. Korba fwestj. Korba {C.GJ 3.^-The Executive Director (Generation) C.S.E.B. Korba (west). Korba 4. The Regional Account officer C.S.E.B. Korba (west). Korba WRIT PETITION VNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COWSTITD'TIOW OF IflTDIA tt MIGM COURT OF CHMATTISGAR11 AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice WrEt Petitfon (S) No. 3050 of 2007 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS Shrimati Bafat Begum Chhattisgarh State Etectricity Board and others. '——,; Shri Psrag Kotecha, Advocate for the petltioner. Shri Amiakant Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents. WRTT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTrTUTION OF ZNDZA ORDER (14.07.2011) The petitioner before this Court is a widow of late Md. Rahman who was the employee of Madhya Pradesrt Electrictty Board and retired on 31.03.1996 from the postof P.S. Grade- II and unfortunatety died on 26.07.1996. 2. Grievance of the petltioner is that she is entitled for commuted pension to the extent of 40% in stead of 33%. Thtiugh the petitioner has not specificafty pteaded in the petition that she is entitted for 40% commuted pension but during arguments Shri Kotecha brought to the notice ctf this Court that the petitioner is entitled to the extent sf 40% commuted pension for which her ctaim has been rejected on 12.03.2004 vide Ex.P-5. The petitioner has also prayed that after releasing the commuted pension treating it to be 40%; she be also awarded interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. Denying the entire clasm of the petitioner, it has been argued on behatf of the responcf^nts that after rettrement of tate Md. Rahman. 100% Bensi©n was fixeet and as ser the / g ai».;,;:s—i»,ii §''BgiS-S N ^. ' ^ /^ '^, ^.-...^ .^' ^. ^^•^•' .;•;" 'i'%^ \^ .,f y '"'^-^s.ss.-^' ratio, famity pension was fixed after deducting the adjustments of commuted amount of pension after the death of the employee. As per Annexure-R-lr ft Is apparent that Md. Rahman retired on 31.06.1996 and his pensson was fixed w.e.f. 01.04.1996 and thereafter family penston up to 19.03.2003 was fixed to the tune of Rs.1/200 and thereafter Rs. 600. It has been further argued that durtng his tife time the employse Md. Rahman had given his optson for l/3ni pension commuted under the axisted scheme for Rs. 431 and after adjustment his pension comes to Rs. 862 and the commuted value was worked out at Rs.54,099 which was given to him vide Annexure R-2. Learned counsel for the respondents further submlts that after reviston of the pension, the revised pension amount was also granted to the petitioner and under no circumstances the petitioner could get commuted pension to the extent of 40% because the option to this effect was not exercised by late Md. Rahman. It has been argued that once the option was not exercised by the employee, under no circumstances the petitioner can claim 40% commuted pension. Counsel for the respondents has further drawn attention of this Court to Annexure - R-5 & 6 wherein it has been categoricafly admitted by the petltioner that her husband had exercised his discretion to the extent crf 33% for which she has received the entire amount. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the matenal availabte on record. 5. Considering the faet that the husband of the petltioner himself had opted for 33% connmuted pension, the respondents are fully Justified in reteasing the entire amount to the said extent. Once the husband of the petatloner himself not opted for 40% commuted pension, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the same to that extent. From the facts c^; '^*-1"." ^ ^wf" -3- and doeumentsof the case it is also apparent that the entire amount was giyen to the petjtjoner on time and therefere she is not entitled for any interest as claimed by her. 6. The petltion is thus totally misconceived and that being so is tiabte to be djsmissed. It is accordingly dismjssed. s^^ ytS^s ' ' ^ ^' -'.—^r""—^^.£E*-^E3?SSi?^L'-^^' -'-^'^