SI^SLE BEKCH C-^'\^1 _/ /-" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (Sl No. \ gi-&.9. /2010 PETITIONERfSl RESPONDENTS y- ^^i?^:"..-- .^^y" ^'^sy'^"' ^^'^ .^•" .^^' ^;l71'?'' Hari Charan Suiyavanshi, S/o. Shri Amol Suryavanshi, aged about 62 years, R/o. Village & Post - Birkona, Distt, Bilaspur (C.G.) V E_R S U S ^ (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Water Resources Departrttent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) (2) Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (3) Chief-Engineer, Hasdeo Kashar, Departraent of Water Resources, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ (4) Executive Engineer, Kharang, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^(5) Account General, Pagariya Complex, Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) (6) General Administration / Department, Pension Redressal Committee, through its Secretary, (Constituted in pursuance of the order of the Hontile High Court of Chhattisgarh), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) illliimf'illiJliIllJRi^BI'iSBWUitiNN 1 WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,.t^?^;.^^^^%^g^?^^ ^^i^^i^ ••^l-^:^^;".^-^- ~^^^^'^^•^''^^•^'• ^^^ GM^^^^WiilliiR ^t(I^.W^jusllK^P]ntinker WntPetit^^^^ PETlTldNERS RESPONDENTS VERSUS HariCharanSuryavanshi StateofChhattisgarh andotners Shri S.P.Kate, counsel for the petitioner. shn Aieetslngh PL forrespondents'l'to'4 and 6. counsel for respondent No.5 WRITPETmONUNDER ARTIQLES 29R nc THE CONSTITUTinM OF |ND|^ ORDER (24.11.2010) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though he has compteted more fhan 30 years of service, pensionary benefits have been denied to him on the ground that he has not complefed 10 years ofregular 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that white passing the order dated 18.11.2009 the High Power Retiral Dues Committee has not considered all aspects of the matter in particular the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Jhuniya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (W.P.S. 2884/2009). 3. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that when the High Power Retiral Dues Committee has passed the order, judicial pronouncement in the matter of Jhuniya Bai (supra) was not there and' therefore the said committee cannot be blamed for passing the order impugned. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the case ofthe petitioner is squarely covered with the aforesaid judicial pronouncement in the matter ofJhuniya Bai (supra), he may be permitted to withdraw thispetition with liberty-to make a fresh representation to the authority concerned which may be directed to be decided expeditiously. ss ^T^^^ ^ ;^^^r^. ^^^ ^.^^^^^^ ^^^^ r^ [^^?AT .c ^s^^i^'^-^^li^^^^^l^^^^^^Si;^^^^ ^S;^f,:',^tSte^^eoil.rr^r^Ri8wev§^ complet^s10;y§arsoPr^ulaTjs^JGe^ E>enefits. He however,lpleaas np cibjeetiffhpifthe^petificiriermaK^ representatioh tothe authonty^conGenTed^arKl the^ accordancewiththelawlaiddownintHematterofJhuniyaBai(supra);. 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. In the everit of petitioner's filing a fresh represehtation along with the copy of this order and that in the matter of Junia Bai (supra), the competentauthority shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably withina period of four months from the date of receiptof the same, in terms of the order passed in W.P.S 2884/2009, afterverificationand scrutiny ofthefacts Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ^