FANGLE BE 972A IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH (/53) AT BILASPUR CG. w.P.(S) No. @36 2010 / Hukum Singh Gaikwad, aged 73 years Son of Shri Govind Ram Gaikwad, Retired Head Master, Primary SchooL’ Dondi Lohara Sambalpur, Biock & Tahsil D’Lohara Distt. Durg C.G. Versus Petitioner Respondents - 1. / State of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur C.G. 2. Accountant General, ' \ow, “(9‘ gt, «VA w)‘ I Pagariya building, Pandri, Raipur CG ‘ v‘ we at?” .5,f c" 3; Vidhi Nyayaiaya, Durg.) g 9‘“; 3 @f” District Education Officer, why“ Durg (C.G.) 0Vwb .\° 4! (1?) Block Education Officer, $g/£ \ Dondi Lohara, District Durg C.G. l.‘ Article 226 of the Constitution of India for j of writ of Mandamus/direction or any other / ,/a/p[3ropriate writ. \ / W.w:{a:gg2m..:&?3§i “goo WI mm (Wu) WWW mmwmiwm %sifanm 3.3. Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 25.96.2910. Shri Somkant Verma, cow Miss Sangeeta Mishra, PJ Shri Sach'm Singh Rajput‘ sounsel for respondent No.2. Heard on LA. 1 for amend ent. 0n due consideration, LA. No.1 is attowed. Petitioner is permitted to Iete the name of respondent No.3 from the eause titie, during the c urse of the day. Learned counsel for the p titioner is heard on admission. Leamed counsel for the etitioner submits that the matter pertains to a dispute relating to payment of Rs. 97,978I- from his G.P.F. Account. He prays that he matter may be referred to the Pension Committee. This Court, in W.P.No /2004 (Baiinath Mandat Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & oth and other connected matters, directed the Committee to consid r the matter of retrial dues as the disputed question of facts we involved. The Committee was y constituted by the State Govem ent, pursuant to the order dated 1906—2006 passed in W.P.No.1 2006 (Smt. Keia Bai Chandrakar Vs. State Govemment of Chhattis arh and others), and order dated ‘ {13-3-2008 passed in M.C.C. No. 105 of 2008 (State of Chhattisgarh i lsel for the petitioner. .. for the State. . 2 e r “ WWWW WWMCW §<329§ ’ mamm (Wu) WWW WWW —LV WM W®§R %eli1%wa11%¥1 mwm and others Vs. Baijnath Manda! and another). Thus, this petition is square!y covered by the judgment and order dated 315‘ January. 2008 passed in W.P.Nu. 4642 $ubmitted by Ieamed cuunsel ap earing for the parties. This petition is according! disposed of in the same terms i.e., the office of the Advocate Gener l is directed to send the case to the Committee, ‘within a period of 1 daye from the date of'receipt of a oopy of this order. Thereafter, th Committee shati issue notice to the petitioner and officers concerned within a further period of 15 days; The Committee shall consider a d pass order, in accordance with iaw, after affording proper oppo unity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner and the offic concemed may tiie additionai documents, ii necessary. The e ire exercise, including payment of retirai dues, if any, to the petiti , be compieted within a period of tour months from the date of rece pt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shalt supp! one compiete set of the petition to the State counsei for transferring e same to the Committee. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishla‘ Judge washer ditto mine 9° ow w my ii'I‘fd we I S/l47-—2/2(l10 ~1,0Ct,0()0. e ! o r r, * o