Shri S.K. Panicker v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6078 of 2019 Shri S.K. Panicker S/o Late K.M. Panicker Aged About 79 Years R/o Akbar Khan Chal Eidgah Road Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Affairs, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Civil Line, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Secretary Finance Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Director Treasury, Audit And Accounts Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Joint Director Of Division Funds Account And Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

6. The Superintendent Of Police T/C Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For State :

Mr. P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 16/08/2019 1.

The limited grievance that the petitioner has through the present writ petition is that the petitioner who stood retired from service on 30.06.2000 was not granted retiral dues in terms of F.R. 22(D-1). 2.

The counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No.6 allowing the claim of the petitioner and ordered showing the calculation chart also was published on 18.10.2018, however in the course of implementation, the office of the respondents No. 4 & 5 have put

-2certain quarries and have called for the records from the concerned Department to verify the claim put forth by the petitioner. 3.

The said query was made as early as in January, 2019, but till date it has not been finalized, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition. 4.

This Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the respondents No.4 & 5 are directed to ensure that the claim of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the respondent No.6 vide Annexure P/1 dated 18.10.2018 is processed and finalized at the earliest within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The other respondent i.e. the office of respondent No.6 in particular is also expected to provide all necessary information and the records to the respondents No. 5 & 6 to promptly take a final decision on the claim put forth by the petitioner. 5.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved