Slngle Bsnch IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS PU R PETITIONER RESPONDENTS A^ ..••^./ ^/<'.-•' <-N .< ^.•" '<) '/^ \y ^y r^M^ ^^^y K' W.P.(S)NO. S.'Wi- /2010. Brijmohan Tiwari, S/o late Basdev Tiwari, aged abc^t 68 years, Retd. Forest-Guard, r/o village Kanakpur, P.S. Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja (C.G-). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Deptt. of Forest, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Consen/ator of Forest, Sarguja, P.0. Ambikapur, Sarguja, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, North Sarguja Forest Division, Ambikapur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ,T" XI-HC—78 HTHCtT a»*1iq» 3-=T •^I'^K'I'M, »flly41(o, f^dl'y^ ^P. (^U-Cs . ^i/^J I'O "ft^ 200 31KST'^RT(>^f^^E[) 311^1 ^iT R;-)i+ ^8ff ^I^T gRTTR? TRireT flft?; sn^i SB • Hon'bte Shri M^nindra wpiferat^ tniRif-if fs^t •(^R^R Mohan |Shrivastava.^.3ffi" OT^T 11 connectted Shri Ratan Pusty, counselTorthe| Shri N.Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer With the oonsent of learned finally. This case pertains to grievance atisir dues. Leamed counsel appearlng for that the matter may be referred to the Hi This Court, in W.P.No.4642ffOC}4 Chhattisgarh & others) and other consider the matter of retrial dues as| involved. The Committee was constitut^d to the order dated 19-06-2006 passed| CharKlfakar Vs. State Govemment cf dated 13-3-2008 passed in M.C.C. No.| othas Vs. Baijnath Mandai and covered by the judgment and order W.P.No.4642/2004 (Baijnath Mandal (s[jf appearing for the parties. This petition is accordingiy dispcjsea' of the Advocate Qeneral is directed to st period of 15 days from the date of rece) Committee shatl issue notice to the pe{ further perioa' of 15 days. The Comm) accordance with taw, after affording petitioner. The petitioner and the of documents, if necessary. The entire ex^r Ipetitioner. ftir the State. counjsel for the parfies, the petUon is heard anoiper; !SU! itising on accourt of non-grant of cetirai f\e pet'itioner, on instructions, aibmits ^h Power Retirai Dues Committee. (Baijnath Mandal Vs. The Stafe of matters, directed the Committee to the disputed question of facts vrere by the State Govemment, pursuant linVV.P.No.1961/2006 (Smf. Keja Bai ]phhattisgarh and others), and oreter i 05 of 2008 (State of Ch'nattisgarh and Thus, this petition is squareiy [dated 31 January, 2008 passed in |jpra) as submitted by leamed counsei |sed of in the sarae terms i.e., f'ne office ind the oase to tfie Committee, within a pt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the titioner and oificers concemed within a ttee shail consider and pass orcter, in proper opportunity of hearing to the teers concerned may fite addltional rcise, including payment of retirai dues, + XI-HC—78 wqwi (b*1lcb "s^ 'airai^R, dtfly'iri, fadi'M^ _-.....^..•.£.:.L&J...IA^..:..5..9J^llv 'TPI, 200 snW^i^Crt^?) 3(1^1 W h-tt* TtlT sn^I sniro Oeetiii 'FRIIWlfeSH^I 3- fouihd b^n if any, io {he petitioner, be compteted wi| date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall suppiy one counsei as weli as counsel for the same to the Committee. The retum as weil as the oalculat shows that certain amount has been said recovery has been made in respect ] fbrest produce. The totai amount has be^\ counsel for the petitioner submits that for initiated nor any show oause notice was £|r nothing has-been eiicited by the respon^ after retirement, any enquiry petitioner or any order of recovery passec^. In the absenoe ofthere being any| the petitioner under Rule 65 of the amount could not be recovered from the r< In case, respondents would consic Trom the petitloner, it would be open for proceedings under the law. The Retir^l ciaims ofthe petitioner in the light With the afbresaid obseryations, cc|mplete set ofthe petltion to the State Acftountant General for transferring the 4I^(¥1^1'1'lTT^Icff'^ F^^t <F*l^tK ^; sffin aii^ii hin a period of fbur monttisfrom the |ion placed on record (Annexure R/1) recoverabte by the petitimer. The 'pi Tendu Patta and iosses relating to calculated as Rs.55,500/- Learned [he said amount, no enquhy has been to the petltioner. On this aqsect, pent that either during the sen/ice or hg has been initiated ^ainst the Cllven Pelnsion I recovery proceedings drawn against Rules of 1956, the aforesaid ttirat dues. |er that some reccwery is to be made |the respondent to dr£wappropriate jl Dues Committee shail decide the mKle as above. petition is finaliy disposed off- of obsejvations tHe Sd/- B Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge h-