SingI&BencK CF -/^/. IN THE HIGHCOURT OFCjIHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION~'NO^^ 8 / 2006 WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PETITIONER ^^ ^gp^ ^ ^•".^ SP'" ,,.\1''' .<v •y ^^"" t:»'-' RESPONDENTS ,^s^ <rvtf * ^l ^ ,:1*<-^ .'fc Smt. Ashiya Bibi, widow c/TLate Shri Jafar Ullah Khan, agecl about 60 5?ears, resident of village and Post Lakhanpur, Nagar Panchayat Lakhanpur, Dist.t. Surguja (C.G.) (Havine G.P.F. No.CED 92544) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through -.'' Secretary, Departinent of Schoul Education, Dau Kalyan Singti Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Accountant General, Statfci^' of Chhattisgarh, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur. 3. Distt. Education Officer," Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) •~) XI-HC-78 <TTR<^1 ShHltft S^^WTOPT, 8iT(1y'l6, fsl<')l«y ^.^<P,.^^.....^ 200^ w^v w<«(^y{^) sn^T^K-ii* OTrsf^iSHR; "Sl^r.' gCTWflfNw^T 14-8.2006 Shri A.N. Bhakta, counsel foifl Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy G^ No. 1 and 3, on advance copy. Smt. B.R. Maity, Advocate a); Standing counsel Tor respondent Nc|. Heard. The main grievance raised tji Shri Jafar Ullah Khan, is that her| attaining the age of superannuatio^ Teacher. After the retirement, Jafa( but so far the final payment of respondent No.2. It has been mentioned in payment is not being given on the) had withdrawn an amount of Rs.44, District Education OfRcer vide his petitioner's husband had not withdra 92, but even then respondent No. payment. !n the cireumstances, couns' petitioner may be ailowed to make and 3 and in tum, they be dire appropriate order to which counset fi Having heard learned couns Ifacts and cireumstances of the cas wifepfrrwi^'ffte^ :<^p: ^Twf^rw^T fte petitioner. rt. Advocate for the State/respondents pears on behalf of Shri S.K. Beriwai, / the petitioner, who is a widow of late husband retired in the year 2001 on i while he was working as Assistant Ullah Khan had expired on 29-4-2003 iPF amount has not been given by ara-5.4 of the petition that the final ground that the petitioner's husband p00/- in the year 1991-92 whereas the letter dated 5-12-2005 has already intimated the respondent No.2 that t^iey have examined the record and the wn the said amount in the year 1991- is not Issuing the authority for final ji for the petitioner submitted that the |a representation to respondent No.2 i^ted to decide the same and pass t respondents has no objection. fbr the parties, having regard to the 4 and without expressing any opinion P.T.O. Kj •~0 \ XI-HC-78 s^'^rpTRra', ®Tn*f'i6,Ridiuy *n^icn sb*i ich W-1[ 200 3ii^i xaw ('i^igq^sT) sn^r^r l^ri?; tTW 3D^?T tiHicti reiTigr H^T 3:n^?r —L' +Micl'iTl-l WRff ff fSC6 ^KZK ^tSri^Tsn^fr on the merit of the case, the pe|titioner is allowed to make a detailed representation along with a copy of this petition to respondent No.2 raising all her grievances within a perioitl of 10 days from today and in turn, respondent No.2 shal! examine regarding payment of GPF amoun| GPF amount to the petitioner, with| receipt ofthe representation, in acct)rdance with law. With the direction aforesaid, ttie petition stands disposed of. Parties are entitled for certifi^d copy ofthis order. the case of the petitioner's husband t and pass order regarding payment of in a period of 30 days from the date of Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge e SSS '^ P.T.O.