Smt.Vimla Gosai v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 566 of 2013 Smt. Vimla Gosai, Wd/o. Late Shri Krishna Rao Gosai, Aged about 64 years, R/o. Main Road, Tulsipur Ward No.16, Police Station Basantpur, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3. Joint Director, Accounts and Pension, Treasury, Joint Director Office, Treasury, Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Office of Divisional Joint Director, Raipur Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 24/04/2018

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been paid the actual monetary benefits, which arose from the kramonnati, leave encashment, gratuity and the monetary benefit payable to the petitioner on undergoing the family planning operation granted by the respondents on different dates. According to the petitioner, though the benefit of kramonnati has been granted to the petitioner, but actual calculation has not been made and she has been paid less than what she actually was entitled for.

2. Considering the nature of dispute, particularly the fact that allegation being that of the petitioner having been paid less amount, let the case of the petitioner be placed before the High Power Committee constituted by the State Government in respect of payment of

pension and other retiral dues and the committee in turn shall after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing shall decide the claim of the petitioner objectively and consider whether the petitioner has been rightly granted the monetary benefit or the amount paid is less than what she is actually entitled for. If the committee finds that the petitioner is entitled for more monetary benefit than what has been awarded, the same may be released to the petitioner forthwith. If the committee finds that she is not entitled for anything extra than what has been paid, then the intimation in this regard should also be given to the petitioner.

3. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved