DsT THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo. L2^ /2001 ^- ^'-' PETTHONER ^»-" Ghanshyam Dwwedi, Aged about 60 years, S/oLate Shri Ram Naresh Dwivedi, Retired Compounder. R/o Lal Bagh Siniihi Colony, Street No.2, Rajnandgaon. Versus- \AO' '" f-^ RESPONDENTS : l.Municipal Corporation Through its ChiefExeeutive Of5cer, ^1n.[--'c^^'' RaJnandgaon. f.'r J> &?^-r""T ^&f-" - _. ....•^'/^•s^1;'"." 2. Director, " ^fy^'^^' Local SelfGovemment, "^> .ci. Raipur. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WMT OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS. PROHIBmON OR ANY OTIffiR SUTTABLE WRIT. ORDDER OR DIRECTION. ^ i ;[ XI-HC-22 3TI^T?ff R-fi+sn^r Stl1 dfg(T TSf ^ l-41cl•il, tflfl'M'ld, [slfll'My L^ HT1TWI ShHritl 3TI^?T<T ff:.!:' 01 V^ 200 (c|<)«A 3t1^T?TaTWHfN 5 Sss. "a-T 'y" ~£i"^ 20W Shri Vinav Pandey. leam' Shri Anand Shukla. 'earn' Shri Sandeep Yadav, !ea f@sDondsnt No.2. \rauments heard. Order dictated as foltows. d counsel for the Detitioner. y counsel for resDondent No.1. Dy. Go<4. Advocate for the State/ The petitioner is a retirec) Rajnandgaon. Eariier he was ret hls age of superannuation of 5? dated 13-8-1998, the petitioner v| "eriod "f one vear and this 24-8-1999. Thereafter the Densi' ^n{i ijltjrn^t^Iv fh^ sFTtnijon^fl f>?h Q'-riFjr cfated 3-3-2001 Dertainin'h D^titjonfsr ws^'s D^ssod and DOF Rs>825/" D8r nionth ss oor contQ! +i<(fci<fl-< tiii(iT^')Wt<Riwi< ^arf^iTsn^T employee of Municjpa! Corporation, ired on 30-6-1998, after comDtetfon o' vears. Thereafter. bv another orcfer lys aiven re-emD'ovment for a further )eriod of one year hss ended on >n c^?9 of th^ DBtition^r w^s fin^ti.^d •"J@r ^nn^^-iii-Q^p/^ which 'S th6 fJH^t rK f0 fh^ flx^.tlOH Of D©nS'OH Of th© Isjon of the Detitioner was fixed at ts ofthe sajd order. nlts (cft^y^) XI-HC-22 *nw[TgvHi<t> 3:5cT^TF)T?ra', »Tfi+l'IS,Rtdl'tfy 3TT^T4;jcft V^ 200 fc|'b4 3n^T?iT R-ii+a.n^T SbtfiqiBf?tT sn^r ?T(ITSK (rf^r 2 »hi^F<-i41-fwfRft' ir' ts<S <Riw;i< ^sri^R'sn^r f2') Learned counse! for the Dit "ension of the netitionet" in titioner submits that the fixation of the Annexure-P''6 is not in accordanil Annex"re-P/2, whlch is a oav fl Isum of Rs.825/-. as contained in te with !aw. He refers to ths document fixation certificate. in which. the scate and tho "av adffiitted in case 'rtified. The contention of le s calcu'ations are made the Detitioner has been sDecJftcallv arried counse! for the D®titio"aris that if ^n fh^ basls of 9ntri9s e in Annexure-P/2, the "ension ofth' Rs.825/-, which has been fixecj impugned final fixation order (Anf( i petiticiher sha!! be fixed higher than by the respondent authorities vide exure-P/6). ned counse! for the resoondent (3) On the other hand, lea| Corporation as well as !earned| oraver. Their submiss'on is that In c^s8 of th©DQtltio^cr "3nd B. rici^ht pons'on ^x^tlon hss b^^n msdo, couns®'for the State ODDOses this he correct cs'culati'on has fo°en made (4) At this stags, tearned couilise! for the petitioner makes a limited nrgyer that thfe Detition be dislt ps'f-|^iQn^r 3.hoy|(j ^!^ ^ ^^•|';sH@fj f^i n^g^rj f)f ^ifh ?5 ^irectfon th^f fh^ fixation vide Aiinexure-P/2 befor' should refer his matter to the re 'Dresentatlon on th®basjs of his oav the CQfDoration and ths Coroorat'on 'feoondent No.2 - Director. Loca! Se!f ...^.-.„..,. ........ „.. ^.^^^^..^^^^ XI-HC-22 *11*<WI ShNT^ 3sTaiFn?pr, ®Tfl*i'is;fsidiy^< S?^L!jt)t 200 f^^ sn^r^T f^TRiSt^r giiTR?(ri?cr wrfcpfrr w^rr'ff te^t d^re?R ^a'ri^R'sn^r Go'/emment. Raiourand resDondbnt No.2 b®directed to dis&ose ofthe rnnrssentation of the ostitioner wlthin the stloutated Deriod aranl regardlng refixation of his pension ted bv this Court. Leamed counsel submits that in fact there ts a ca iitation mistake a.nd ifthe cafculation is ma.de on the ba.sis of entrieb vide Annexure-P/2. the difference shnijfd come out. (5) Thls fimited prayer made tty learngd counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by tearned counse! for the Corporation or teamed counsei fortheState. (6) In the facts and circum^ ^ilowsd. (7) Th's petition is disposed o petitioner may fite a detailed re| btances of this cass the "raver Is F with a directjon that If so advised. the Dresentation a'onawith a CODV of thfe writ pet'tion and annexiires bef^re the respondent No.1 i.e. Mun'cipa! c-0rporation, Rajnandgaon, withifi a per'od ofone month from today. !f such a reDresentatior! is fited, wilhin th®aforesa'd Deriod. the Mun'cioa! Corporation, on the basis of make n®cessa.n/commsnts on tlte 'n/lce records of the Detitioner. shal! Hrr)yn<J5 f^is°d bvth6 D6tltlOHQr ^Hd XI-HC-22 STr^T^iT f^iwa.n^r ShKiebHlW it • ^ow» !^" ^<^ <411WI Sh*<|ch ^S? '^MKf-ti, BTfl+1'IS, fafliyy SjS.^.^' 200 f^% 3n^?r??gTWHf?(T '~^l alonawlth the'r comments, the m the Director, Loca! Se!f Governrtient Cor"ors.tion wil! do a!! this exdrcise within a further Deriod of two months from the date of receipt Ifthe matt.er is referred to resoo!; tn/ to dispose of the repressnt^tion within a "eriod of four months representation. A copy of mem<t by respondent No.1 to respondeht so that he wii! know about thsl (8) With the aforesa'd obsert'ations/directions this Detition fina!!v dlsoosed of. (» ,' as oer ruie' <»)itiFci41-iiiticiT if fWl' <RI+<;K ^sri^R'sn^r be of the Detitjoner shaf! be referred to ^ient, Raipur (respondent No.2). The t>f the renresentatior< of the netjtioner. lent No.2, the resoondent No.2 |tion a.s eariy as possible preferably from the date of receipt of the said regatdlng sending of representation nt No.2 shai! be sent to the petitioner St^tUS Of hl? C3S€ Sd/- SuiiiIKumarSinha 'Judge ('ft^^fe^)