^^'??: ini-^^, ?J IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO^^S/ /2005 PETITIONER \^^. i^- ..^^ ..•<^\v.:-"" ^ ^v^T ^ ^' y''J^'i/^ €^y ,..-y RESPONDBNTS ^ ^^^ o^^^Q ^. ./<^",^. r^.yy-^.'^^- ^^ ^?iv^^, ^ ',^-—-^,'" ::':::,. "> :\ :\k .^.' ^ Smt. Dropadi Devi, aged about 50 years, widow of Late Shri Harishankar Panda, residence of Kapu, In front of Middle School, Kapu, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). (On A/c. of claims of death of Late Harishankar Panda, Gram SahayakJ VERSUS f 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Rural Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Director, Deptt of Social Welfare and Village Panchayat, Raigarh (CG) 4. Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) , 5. The Accountant General, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 1'.' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-78 3TI^T^)T^[cb cTSTTW^Tsb^l^ ^ +11*1^1 Sh*1ict» 75? •^ll'Mld-tl, t$Tfl^ll<o, fs)dl'9^< ria-..^.^.5:M</^: ^ 200 311^1 ^5|ch ?^TT^T^rf^f3TI^T <=bi^f<n41'i ^i^^T^te^t'<Ri<^i< ^3:rf^T3TT^T 27.6.2006 Heard Shri A.N. Bhakta, ^dvocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, (3over|nment Advocate for the State. Shri S.K. Beriwal, Cen^ral <3overnment Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. | Return on behalf of respc|ndent No,5 has already fiied. Earlier the matter was IM Additional Advocate ^eneral wil (5overnment Advocate appeared| Court while placin9 reliance on 'i'^fi directed that retrial ben€|fits be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from th^t date and in case it is not possibte, the respondents should assign thcj directed to be listed on 31.3.2006 and on that date iearned counsel for the State sought two weeks' tirr^ and submits that a time may be This matter pertains to ^ widow of Late HarishGnkar Pan< whije working as Sram Sahayal^ the petitioner is running piilar 1^ ted on 3.2^2006 and on that day teamed rfi Shri Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, by, on behalf of the State. On that day the the Hon'ble Supreme Courfs judgment reasons. Thereafter, the matter was e to file the return, but so far no return has been filed. Today, Shri Bajaj, ^ovt. ^dvocate appears on behalf of the State ^ranted to file the reply. etrial benefits to the petitioner, who is |Ja who died in harness in the year 1999 in Sram Panchayat Kapu and since then o post, but so far not a sing!e penny has @ XI-HC-78 3:n^T^lf^TW cT§TT3Tr^rT$h^|ch ^ <.i. ^ 's^ ^ww^, v>^\w\<o, fcidiy^< ^l*<dl sb^lcb ^ 200 ^l ^5ich (<ic<i^<s«^i5T) ?^TTW^TfN'^?T ct)i^fd41<ri HH^iT^te^i^^K ^3T^T3:n^T -2.- been paid to the petitioner ir| respect of retrial benefits i.e. (3PF/ gratuity, teave encashment, in^urance, benefit of 5 Pay Commission and that too in spite of the ^ourt's order dated 3.2.2006 whereby respondent No.3 was directed to decide the case of the petitioner regarding retrial benefits withi have any objection, then th^y should come forward with those objections, but so far nothing ho Reply has been fited on b^ been mentioned that on the rec<j Director, Panchayat <& Social V^ for payment of an amount R^ Director, Panchayat & Social Thereafter, again an authority 1 a period of~ three months and if they s been done by the respondents. shatf of respondent No.5 in which it has 'mmendation of respondent No.3-Deput/ effare Department, Raipur an authority .1,21,523/- was issued to the Deput/ Welfare Department on 14.10.2003. rtegarding residual batance of Rs.2441/-" was issued on 16.12.2005, even t|ien the amount of Rs.1,23,964/- has not been paid to the petitioner. Leamed counsel for the |)etitioner submits that the marriage of petitioner's daughter has been f|xed in the 1 week of Juiy of this year. This is a pathetic case vi|hich shows the indifferent attitude of the respondent authorities in nc| Sahayak who worked ti!l his dea| t deciding the claim of a widow of (5ram ^h under the respondent authorities and they have not come forward ev^n in spite of the Court's order that why XI-HC-78 3^T ^i^id^, ^Tfl^ll<o, f^crtl^y *ll+ldl sh<4|cb ^[ 200 3ll^l ^l5i<b (<lq^q<^) ^n^T^T^Jch ^Tsh^lch .A ,.pc S' S^cTTW^R^W^T ^ <£' —T>. the payment is not being made fo the petitioner. The conduct of the respondent authorities deserves particularly respondent No.S- <=M^?<n41^ ^i^<nT^te^<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T serious condemnation. It is therefore, direct^d that the respondent authorities [^eput/ Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department/Raipur to |mmediateiy reSease the amount of 5PF i.e. Rs.1,23,964/- along with in'ferest to the petitioner for which an authorit/ has already been given by respondent No.5-Accountant <5eneral Office and interest © 8|.5%,which is said to be admissible as on date, on that amount upto the d^te of disbursement be also paid to the petitioner. As far as question rega concerned, respondent No*2 & 4 petitioner in respect of other r^triai benefits within a period of three months from todoy, faiting which this Court again by filing an appl aiso entitled for the cost of t^ which shall be paid to her aiong v^ With the aforesaid directl Consequentty, M.WP* No disposed of. Certified copy today. r>ding rest of the retrial benefits is are directed to decide the case of the the petitioner shaf! be entitled to move ication in the matter. The petitioner is lis petition to the tune of Rs.2,000/-, ?ith the GPF amount. ons, the petition stands disposed of. .4756/06 <& I.A. No.9951/06 aiso stand Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge