Smt. Vidya Devi Sharma v. Chhattisgarh

Judgment

4. Chhattisgarh State Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Divisional Commissioner, (Department Division, Bilaspur) (C.G.) Deputy Tribal Bilaspur District Treasury, Bilaspur Through Treasurer Campus, Collectorate Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur APPLICATION FOR REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2008, PASSED IN W. P. (S)1086/2005 "'^ '•a ~>. HIGH CQURT OF CHHAT?!SSARH A? BILASFUR RSVIsSW FETITION SG. 51 OF 2008

Divisioii BcBcli: HGi£.'1>le Shri B'i&z&il Kuasa.e Siuls.a & Hoa'bls Sbri R.N, Chaadrakar. JJ. 'PIiICAHTf A Tfcwnr v<^ia A ^av^^ t Siul. Viu.va Devi Shaiiua State of ClLb.attisgarii aad ouieis. APPLiCATSOH FOR HEVIBWI?^G THS ORSBR EATBD 08.02-2008 PASSED IK W.P.1SS N0.108S/2QQ5 ;s .Mr. Pra.teeis SIisriu.a., Advoca.te tor the review petitioner. Mr. Ramakaat Mishra, Dy. A.G. forfhc State./ resT»ndents. ( Passed oa 02-13-2013 1 Per SanU Kuxa.su Sittha. J.

2. Heard ou I.A. No.Ol. Tlxis is suo. appUcatiou for c'oiid.onatioji of delay ija flling tlie review peuuou.

3. Qn due considei'a.tion of tlie subin.issioiis in^dc bv leamed counscl for tlie pai'ties and tlie grounds takeu. in the application, we ai'e satlsSed that tlie review petitioiiei has sliowii suMlcient cause fosc iiot flluig the revlew in. tloie aad uie delay 111 fUiag ttie revlew peti.tion. desei'ves to be c'oiidoued. '4-. o. I.A. No'.Ol is SLuowed, ueiay coiiu.ouea.

6. Heard ou Review Petition No.51/2008. /', me iiusuaiia 01 uie peuuoiier iiaixieiy^ 0.1-''. snaritia uiea aii Origiaal Appucation (OA) before the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), Jabalpur against the onder of impositiou of penalty d-ated. 14-07-1987, recoveiy order uated 21-11-1994 as also appellate oru.cr dated 17-02-1996. As au effect of the stay granted, recoveiy was stayeuL. Gu the foriiiation ofState ofChhattisgajrli, bj-s OA stood traiisfeiTed to tue Hi^h Court of Clihatfcisgarh and. was numuered as W.P.(S) No. 1086/2005. Dui-iug Qie pendeuc-y ofthe Writ petition, Mr. u.P. Sliarnia. died aiid was substluited by his wife Sint. Vidya Devi Shanaa, the petitlorier hereiu.. After deatb. of Mr. Shaniaa, tlie peiislon wljdeh was beiD.g paid to hiia was stopped, fhcreforc, suc filcu au ii-iteiim applicatlon (M.W.P No.594/2007) in 'wP(S) No. 1086/2005 on 09-02-2007 for necessaiy the pendiug direcUon.s ID. t-uis I'eg&rd. The writ petitloii eajLae up lur heariD.g before tlie siugle judge on 08-02-2008. The learned siagle judge l^king it to be a pure £u.atter relatuig to penslonaiy beueflts, reterreci it to tiie c-oucemed coniiii.ittec wlUcli was tbrBied. as per directious contained lu W.P. No. 1961/2006 (Smt. Keja Bai Chaiidralear vs. State of Govem£u.ent& otliers) for its decision. The sald ojiuiiilttee, on heaTlng tlie parties, took a deeision ou 13-08- 2008 and h.eld uiat the riscoveiy dltccted was as per or<ler of punishuient iiuposed upou the husbailu of tuc writ petitioner and the i'elicf r:1airnf-f1 in. tlie writ petitiou i.e. settiug y.side of tlie puiiish nieut &ad i'ecoveiv ord.ers was uot nxaiu.taina.ble be&re the c'oiu-oiiLLee.

8. Mr. Prateek Shai'iua, leamed counsel for the revlew petitioner has ai'gued that 110 reUef relatuig to peiislonaiy beneflt was claimed lu tlie writ petition; oaly an iateruu application for uecessary directionwas filed by the wrlt pctitioiier; the Writ Court, held it as a ptue niatter of pensiou dlspute and referred it to the concerned c'ojnmlttee, which ultirnately ulu not eiitertaia the said rcliefs aad fhe oiiler dated 13-08-2008 was passed by the couuulttee. His subniissioji is that in this iuanner uothuig was adjudlcated i& relation to the grievance ralsed by tue petitioner eifher by this Coiirt or by the Coiiiuilttee and the writ petltlou was fuially disposed of. Tlierefbre, tbe writ petition m.ay agaln. be tKikeii ou record siau nia.y oe decided 011 iiierits in accord.ajice with law.

9. Ou the otuer hand, ?v!r. R.K. Mishra, learneu Dy. Advocate Grciieral appeai'iag on behalf of thc State/ respoudents, has opposed tucsc argLLBaents. However, he lias also iiot dlsputed the fact fhat tlie wrlt petiuon filed by fbc husbaud of fh.e review petitioner was not iu relation to penslonary benefits aud It was lu relauon to setting asjdc the penalty uiiposed agaiast the husband of the petitioner, aud further, that tiie coiumittee entei'taining pcnsiouaiy grievaii.ee wa.s fuUy Justuled iu uot ejitei'tsLLEiiD.g the above grievaiice ofthe petitioaer wuUe disposiag ofthe inatter before it. He argTies that the levlew petitioii would iiot be jQiaia.taiu.aule beca.use th.e peiisioii coiruiilttee has cojuiiplied the oider passed by this Court.

10. We liave heai'd couusel fbr the pajfies. XX. Tlic original sipplicatioii wlik;h. was later 011 registered a-s wrlt - petition, was filed for the fotlowing reliefs: 4 (1) The Konrble Tribuiial £u.yy be plea-seu to qua.sli orders Aniiexure A-10 aiid. Ajiuexuie A-16 In the liglit of &regoiug lcgal and factual grouuds. d.eclared as illegal uuU and void. The lecovei'y against They be uie a.ppucan.t's gratiiily is whQlly wiuiout jurisdictioii. Tb.e applicaut be alsb awai'd.ed. cost of tlie pi'oceedings. Thls Kon'ble Trlbujial oe fuTther pleased to set (2) aside the impugned order dated 17-02-1996 (Annexure A/ 17).

12. Tb.e coucerned cornrnittee was constituted uy the State Goveriuiicut, as per oiuer of fhls Court, for hearlng the pensloiiaiy gfievances of flie retired euiployees. It appears that uu 08-02- 2008, taldD.g i'efereiice of the aLove interlm. appUcatiou {01 directloD. to release the penslon aiter the ueafh of Mr. Shai'iaa, the learned siugle judge refex'rcu the entu'e niatter to the coiiimlttee for a decislon takiug it to be a fliatter of peiisionaiy benefit oiily, aiid ^sued directioii fhat fhe eiitu'e exercise iu fuis regaid iucluding tlie payiiient of rctiral dues, if a^sy^ to the petitlouer ue cojuipleted wj.ttuu a period of four iiiortths froiii fhe date of I'eceipt of th.e copy oforier dated 08-02-2008.

13. Adniittedly, the dispute relatuig to chaUenge to the order of penally, recovery as well as the appeBate order was not withiu fhe juilsdiction of the c-0iiuiuttee consututed for scttlcuient of the retiral dues/peiision. Thereforc, tiuc coainiittee did not exercise the juiisulcuou aiiu uluuiately no pouit raised by the petitioner, in fact, was adJLidicated and the issues raised La. the writ petitloii reiiiained .7 un-aiiswered. However, by order dated 08-02-2008, th.e niatter of tlie petitioner befofc fue Hi^i Court was finaUy disposed of.

14. We are of the v'iem fhat ia the above facts anu cu'ciLm.stauces oftbe case, the oiu.er dated 08-02-2008 deserves to be 1'ecalled and fhe writ petttioii of tlie review petitioiier deserves to be declded on luerits in accoiuance with law.

15. In vlew of tbe above, tiie review petitipu is allowetl aud th.e uupugned oider dateu 08-02-2008 passed in W.P(S) No. 1086/2005 1s recalled. The writ petitiou is restoreu to its origiual nuuiber. It shail proceed fi'oin. fhe stage on whlch it was referred to ttie concerned coinniittee. SdA SunU Kumar Sinha 1 Jud8e i Judge Sd/. R.N. Chandrakar