¥. ^- (^ IN IHE HIGH G00RT OS- JUBICATURE AT BILASPUR (C G.). WRII EE'EIIICH N0. 3684' OP 2003 SETWEBN Mo-fci I>al Sharma S/o Late Shri SuKh Bai! Sharma, aged about 54 years» Re'bired Driver Grade I» (Ea-stiAiile Badhya Efadesh State aaad Transport CDrpoigtion) posted at Bilaspur, resident of sarju Bagicha* Azad Nagar,Masan Ganj, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (CG). EETITICHER A N D 1. 2. l?he S-fcateof CKhattisgarh, Tnrough Uie Secretary Departraffit of Transpor- -ta-tion, Man-tralay* D.K.s. B-iilding, Raipur(CG) 'flie Hanaglng Director, Adhosarachna vi'kas Higam Qihattisgarh (Parlvahan EcabhaQ ) Raipur (CG) • 3. Ibe Divisional Man^er, Chhattisgarh Aiahosaracbna Vlkas Nigan (Parivahan Prabhag), Saipur (CO). ?fj^T^V^ s9-I'i'le D:tvisional ficcounts Officer, Chhattisgarh Adhosaracihna VUtas Nigam, Bilaspur, Tehsil and Bistrict Bilaspur (CG). i1>, ,^^' <0 s. ttiit Sicharge* Chhattisgarh Adhosarachna Vikas Higan, BUaspur Dspo-fc, Bllaspur, tehsil and Dis'trict Bilaspur (O^ ^ ^e^••^^^1-' <>-^^w..-^ 'y<e!^-"""" ^•" BS§'PaNSg Tg ...02. t 8 : 02 S 8 W839 EEIIIION tJH]3ERARSICEES 226_Z22 TOE ca'is'riwricB ©yiNDXS ^•^ .s^Sh. ^ •»'twit1 Petitioaer HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3684 of 2003 Moti Lal Sharma Respondents -Versus- The State of Chhattisgarh 8s others (Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri S. P. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 1. Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 5. O R D ER (Orall (Passed on this 18th day ofMarch, 2010) 1. With the consent of the pardes the matter is heard finally. t 2. According to the petitioner, he was a^pointed on 17.7.1967 in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (M.P.S.R.T.C.). Pursuant to a survey (Annexure P/l), conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh for extending Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S.), the petitioner submitted his option on 3.10.2002. By order dated 25.1.2003 (Annexure P/4) the petitioner was granted V.R.S. w.e.f. 31.1.2003. After calculation, the petitioner was found entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,44,528/-. Fifty percent of the total sum i.e. Rs. 2,22,264/- was released to the petitioner on 27.3.2003 and remaining amount was released in three instalknents on 31.1.2004, 31.1.2005 and 31.1.2006. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities have not paid 10% of the Provident Fund, although it was deducted fron-i the salary of the petitioner towards his contribution to the Provident Fund. Further, the amount ofRs. 8050/-, Rs. 7520/-, Rs. 501 and Rs. 35/- under various heads have not been paid to the petitioner. 4. 5. 6. 7. The petitioner was also not given the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 5 submits that pursuant to the notification dated 27.12.2002 (Annexure R- 5/1), issued by the Central Government, the M.P.S.R.T.C. is liable to pay the claim of the petitioner, if any, prior to the period 31.12.2002. The respondents have paid the admissible amounts to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2003. Pursuant to the option of the petitioner the V.R.S. was extended to the petitioner and all dues have been paid to him. in accordance with his entitleraent. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had submitted his option with the remark that the total V.R.S. amount may be paid to him in lump sum, while granting the benefit of Central Pay Commission. The amount of V.R.S. was paid in four instaUments, therefore, the petidoner is entitied to admissible interest w.e.f. 27.3.2003 to 31.1.2006 only. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts situation, this petition involves disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has not specified the ^mounf to which he is entitled under what heads. In view of fhe above, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may make a representation to the concerned authority, specifying his entitlement under various .heads, which inay be considered and decided by the concemed authority, in accordance with law, having regard to the V.R.S. scheme. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/. "'T^""0-"-