^^ HE6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT EELASPUR WJ>. (L) No. 1364 of 20)8 Petitioner Responcients 1. 2. 3. State of Oihattisgarh, Tlirough : Executit% Engineer, Pubtic Works Department, (&jilding & Roads), Division - Bolod, District - Durg (Chharri^arh) Shri ftameshuur. 5/o. Uite Shri teimdicndra Oeshmukh, Vilkige & Post - &humli, Tohsil - Lohuru, District - Durg (Chhntti^arh) The Appellate Aulhority cum Depu'ty Commissioner of Payment of Srutuity Act. feiipur (Chhattisgorh) The Controlling Officer, Payment of Sratuity Act. 1972, burg, District - burg (Chhottisgarh) WRIT^ETTrQIhLUNBER ARTICE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTtON Single Bench ; Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agiwhcrtri. J- 5hri Alok Birftfihi, 6ovt. Advocote for the petitioner/State- ORAL ORDER (Passed on -Hiis 23rd doy of April, 20(») 1. With the consent of leomed counsel appearing for the petitioner, the matter is t(ri<en up fnr final henring. 2. Thes petitwner/State of Oihottisgnrh impugns the order dated 12.2.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by tke Controlling Au+hority, under -the Puyment of Snituity Act, 1972 aitn Asristant Labair Coinmissioner, bui^ in Case. No. (Si/PGA/2005, which NBS confir-med by the order doted 24.9-2007 (Annexufe P/4) pnssed by the Appellnte Authority imder the Payment of Sraluity Act, 1972 cum beputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Roipur in Case, No. 143/P-6.A./20)7. 3. The Aj^ellant Authopity, after hnying considered •the contentions of the petitioner, uiho wos oppellont tyfore. it, came to the conclusion os under:- " 4. 'ict)'<i<!<fl -WftaPfl WSJH 4 <rf 1963 'ift li«i^F ^ 1OT 4 tppf'ST ^ifi^ 31.35004 ^ 1R?f 4t-1 * SRT 'ftillpt^cri ^H t 1 •T ^H«&wRt^ airef^r ^FT 49is/- i<tfe* ^gr ara& 40 irf ^ 9ft wff dmf.i'i yiaR ^ .WitpT V3 IRgff fiRW t i -wftcnsfi ^ sre vf^i "RR <r ij<xi'<i<fcS) ^t fegf^F 01.01.1963 ^ 31.12.96 cdp Wflf ••'^ 4 ? 01.01.1996 ^ 31,32004 iW 'w4'*(lRd Wmi 4 ippf iSiFff ^ifi^R fiiW Ipf wf?PT 3n?RtT ^PT 4913/- ^ft<PR {SiBT VS, VF^ SS^vf^S ^T "? ^W ^ fti 'jort'ii.lttft ^ W^if 41 irf i^ 'Kiltit'lcl 4 <it ^cTO-^RPr TCf V; TOif ft>W § 1 ^HfN PlflRA*-;") f^TO 01.01.1996 VRR[ (M^htRrt «ltoi* V^ tp ^gr P^fts f^ira. 31.3.2004 cR> <ft wSr ^ iga M196/- wrt •PT rfyic'.M gpa w^ w €tqrat i" 4. The main argumBsnt of -the petitionep/S+nte i<s that the Courts below have not considered the fnct •that the ltesponden+ No.l was working as permment gon9 man ui.e.f. 01.10.1963 to 31.12.1995 and gro-faiity of this period is payable by the affice of the Executiw, &igineer, uihereas, dne, had worked m contingency estirfilishment (regular) ui.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 31.03.2004 and the gnrtui-ty of this period is payobte by the office of Joint Director, Treaairy, Accounts and Pension. 5. On perusal of -the impugned orderfi possed by -the ai'rtiorities below, it is evident that the grounds mised herein have been -&- I rf;ssae% ,«-y;f-a"Bi ^•' ^^.f3.f"'»- ISvS'^m N ^^.. "w^ ''^s^ ^ considered in terms and there is no illegolity. irregutarity or perversity m the orders passed by the Courts below. 6. It is wetl-njgh established thot this Court m exercise of its supervisory ^irisdiction under Art'icfe 227 of the Constilution of Indio riiould refrain itself from interfering wBh -rtte ordep pnssed by the Court befow, except in aich cnses where perversity, ill^ality, irp^ularity or jurisdictional error is writ tai'ge on the face of the i^cord, which is not in ihe preaent caae. 7- In view of •the foregomg, -there is no nierit in this petition and the same is dismissed, iaimmarily- T"iakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge liU