Smt. Ganeshmati @ Ganeshmoti vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2946 Chatt

                                        1



                                                                            NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           Writ Appeal No.89 of 2021

Smt. Ganeshmati @ Ganeshmoti W/o Anand Ram Bariha Aged About 75 Years
Address Village Kishanpur, Post Kishanpur, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Education,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.    District Education Officer District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

3.    Block Education Officer Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

28.10.2021

Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the

State/respondents.

2. The writ appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner against an order

dated 14.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S)

No.5232 of 2020.

3. The grievance expressed in the writ petition was that though the

husband of the appellant, who was working as a Headmaster, had died in

harness on 03.11.2002 and although more than 18 years have elapsed, his

retiral dues have not been paid to the appellant.

4. In the background of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge

disposed of the writ petition as follows :

"4. Under the circumstances, the writ petition at this

juncture stands disposed of with a direction to the

respondents No.2&3 to ensure that death cum retiral

dues payable to the petitioner, subject to all

verification so far as entitlement is concerned, be

concluded within a period of 120 days and the entire

admissible dues should be released to the petitioner

within the aforesaid period, failing which any amount

payable to the petitioner would carry interest @ 10

percent per annum from the date of death of the

deceased till the actual payment is made."

5. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that the writ appeal was preferred on the ground that the learned Single Judge

had not granted interest @ 10% per annum along with the amount payable from

the date of death of the deceased till the actual payment is made. She has

further submitted that the learned Single Judge had, however, observed that the

appellant would be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum in case of death -cum-

retiral dues payable to the appellant was not paid within a period of 120 days.

As the period of 120 days has expired and as no appeal was preferred by the

State against the aforesaid order, she submit that the appellant would, in any

case, be entitled to 10% interest on the amount payable to the appellant and

therefore, there is no surviving cause of action, and as such, the appeal may be

disposed of as not pressed.

6. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General

appearing for the State/respondents fairly submits that no appeal has been

preferred against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, which is

under challenge in this appeal.

7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

appellant, this appeal is disposed of as not pressed.

                       Sd/-                                          Sd/-
               (Arup Kumar Goswami)                            (Goutam Bhaduri)
                    Chief Justice                                   Judge



Anu