v !^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ^C.G.) WRITPEriTION fS) N0. ^^- ?- OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ^ \r-^f:^ /£^y .-'^y^ \>" '^- ^y^^^s^ Ganga Prasad Markam, S/o Late Ganeshram Markam, aged about 63 years, R/o Village-Siyadini, Post Aroud, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Technical Education and Jan Shakti Niyojan Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Director Technical Education Department, Directorate Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4. The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 6. The Accountant General Chhattisgarh, through: the Senior Accounts Officer, Pagariya Complex, Opposite to Bus Stand, Pandri Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA y Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHLBILASPUR Writ Petition (81 No. 7367 of 2009 Gaaga Prasad Markam Respondents -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition under Articles 226 oftiie Constitution oflndia) Sii^le Bench : Hoa'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri P. P. Sahu, Advocate for flie petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Paa.el Lawyer for fhe respondents No. 1 to 5. Ms Fauzia Mirza, Assistant SoUcitor General for the respondent No.6. O RD B R (Orall (Passedoa this 17th day ofDecember, 2009) Heard. 1. Wifh the consent ofthe parties the matter is heard fmally. 2. This case pertaias to non-graat of retiral dues/pension. Learaed counsel appearuig for fh.e petitioner, on iasti'uctions, subniits that the inatter may be referred to the pension coiamittee. 3. Tliis Court, in the matter ofW.P.No.4642/2004 (Baijnath Maadal Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers) aiid other counected inatters, directed fhe Coniraittee to consider fh.e inatter of retiral dues as fhe disputed question of facts were iavolved. The Coiamittee was constituted by the State Goveranient, pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2006 passed ia W.P.No. 1961/2006 (Smt. Keja Bai Chandrakar Vs. State Goverament of Chhattisgarh and others), aad order dated 13.3.2008 passed in M.C.C. No. 105 of 2008 (State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Baijnath Maadal aad anothex*). Thus, tih.is petition is squarely covered by tiie judginent and order dated 31st JaiiuaT^r, 2008, passed in W.P.No. 4642/2004 (Baijnath Mandal (supra) as submitted by learaed counsel appeanag for the parties, 4. This petition is accordiagly disposed ofm the saiae terms i.e., the office of the Advocate General is directed to seud fhe case to ftie ^^^^' F<\ 5. ^L Committee, withia a period of 15 days froin the date of receipt of a copy of this order as well as a copy of the petition froia fhe petitioner. Thereafter, fhe Committee shaU issiie notice to tiie petitioner and officers concenied withm. a further penod of 15 days. The Coramittee shall consider aad pass order, ia accordaiice witli law, after affording proper opportunity of heariiig to tlie petitioner. The petitioner aad the officers conceraed may j51e additional documents, if necessary. The entire exercise, iacluding payraent ofretb'al dues, ifaiiy, to fhe petitiouer, inay be coinpleted wifhro. a period of four lOLonfhs fi'oin tiie date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall supply one complete set of the petition to fhe State couusel for traiisferrirtg the same to tiie Committee. Thalair Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge