{ l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTfgéARH T sILAspug _....T.._ Wri‘l’ Pe‘ri'rion (S) No‘ 2862 of 2009 Pefi‘i’ioner' Topi Chand Sao, 5/9 Late Shri Saiik 'Rum San, Age abou‘l’ 64 year‘s, Refired Upper ivision Teacher, R/o Village & POST a‘h‘i,‘ Biock Pusour, Dis‘rricf Raigarh (f .6.) I Respondem‘ 1. rif DK$ , pr Versus l SfaTe of Chhaffi§garh Through : The hooi ducaon ' Sc Efi Scem, erry Deparfme, ghawan Raiu (C6,) Accounan‘r eera! hha‘rfisar‘h aipur, Dicr Rur (C.G.) Difric‘r Edua‘rn " Officer, Rgurh, is' aig G) The Pc veme Hig Sho ichho di uur rincipd, Gornn‘r h coi, Chhur Umra, Biock Pso, Dir Rah (CG.) sficf igar‘ . WRIT PETIUON‘UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTI9N OF ENEIA e e Be: Hoble M Juie Saish K, Agih Singi nch n' r. s'rc f‘ nowL Shri hoi m Pi’i se orre pei‘lio. r vin e n ye for ‘reondem‘s Ni3 & 4 Sfafe/sp o., . M. ha Sgi sS‘r'r clci‘ro eneral fo respondn o.. ' PSe: rem ?aésed on Da e 2609) ( 18“ y of Jun, d Hear. This mafler permins To payment of reliral benefi‘rs. } t Gn Cg R is'rr’ dip s cid ai Dfricf Rarh (C Dm Ra a‘e, Counl ffh lner 5hl Ard Duby, Pael Lawr s Sarmil inha, A; Slr G r e‘r N2 O R D E R 27 3. : Learned counsel appearing for The efifioner submi‘rs Tha‘r r'al benefifs, The same mayi be referred f0 The Commi‘Hee consfi‘ru‘l'ed by fhe S‘ra‘re Goyérnmenf. 5hri Arvind Dubey, P el Lawyer for fhe S‘rafe/respondenfs No. 1,3 and 4 and Ms. 5’ armila Sir’ighai, !earned As’sft Solicifor General appearing for res onden‘l' No. 2 have no1' oppdsed fhe submission. x siricé ’rhe maf‘rer involves payment of refi l 4. i This Cour'i', in 'l'he maf'ler of WP. l‘xlo.4642/2004 (Baijna‘llq Manna! Vs. The Sfa‘re of Chhah‘isgarh ’& Ofhers) and o‘lher connecl‘ed ma‘i'fers, directed The Comml‘H’ee To consider The ma‘i‘ier of refiral dues as fhe dispuled question of ‘Fac‘rs were involved. The Commif‘l‘ee was consfifufed by The S‘la‘l‘e (:‘Iovernmenf, pursuan‘r fo The order dafed§ 19—06-2006 passed in WP. No. 961/2006 (Sm‘l. Keja Bai Chandrakar Vs; STa'l'e Governmen‘l’ & ofhers) and order da‘l'ed 13403-2008 passed in M.C.C. No.105 of 2008 (Sfa‘re of Chhaffisgarh dipofhers Vs. Baijn‘afh Mandal & anofher). Thus, The pe‘i'i‘l'ion is squarely covered by The judgmenf and order dafed 31“ of January, 2008 passed in .W.P. No.4642/2004 Baijnafh Mandal (supra) as submi‘H'ed b learned counsel appearing for The parTies. 5‘ , v WiTh The consenT of The parTies, This peTiTion is accordingly disposed of in The some Terms Le. The office of The AdvocaTe General is direcTed To send The case ‘To The CommiTTee, wiThin a period of 15 days from The daTe of receipT of a copy of The peTiTion from The peTiTioner and This order. ThereafTer, The CommiTTee shall issue noTice TorThe peTiTioner and The officers concerned, wiThin a period of 15 days] The CommiTTee shall consider and pass order in accordance wiTh law, afTer affording proper opporTuniTy of hearing To The peTiTioner. The peTiTioner and The officers concerned may file addiTional documenTs, if necessary; The enTire exercise including paymem‘ of reTiral dues, y i ' l ‘ t x I I if any, To The pefifioner be cémplefzd i‘i'h‘in a period of four mbréfhs from The da‘l'e of recéip‘l‘ of a copy f This order. 6. i’ The peTi‘l’ioner shall suppiy eX‘rr-a opy of The peti‘rion 1'0 !eor'Ened counsei appearing for 1'he resp c‘rive respondeni's for for‘lmarding The same 1'0 fhe Commi‘rfee. 7. : 1 > pensionnry dues, i‘r is no'r necessary To fil In case of grievahce wifh regard To non-paymen'f of a Wrif pefi‘rion before Thié Cour? directly“ The represenfafion/afppHea‘rion can be moved before ‘rhe Pension Commi‘r‘ree as sfafe§d above. The Pension i Corhmi‘H'ee shail no? refuse ‘io enferi'ain 'rhe repfresen‘l'a‘rion/applicafion,if so fiied direéfly.