g {f/Im) 1N THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 WRIT PETITION {is} No.1 A gz/OF 200? 1 4 ? The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Raipur (C.G). The Controlling Authority under the Payment Gratuity Act, 1972 (Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central)), Bilaspur (C.G). )“5/ Shri D.K.Saha, S/o Late Devendranath Singh, R/o 1st floor, Block, F-2, Shriram Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur(C.G) / RESPONDENTS / PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261¢7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN TH E NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION ETC. l. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER. As given in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS. As given in the cause title, x ga [Vi/South Eastern Coalflelds Limited through its Chairman OK@,\a/Y ‘JQ’x ..... ‘ cum Managing Director, \w‘ .3 & SECL, Seepat Road, Bilaspur $.‘wmky A ‘ (CG.). VERSUS HIGH‘COURT OF CHHAiiTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {$) N0. 1072 0f 2007 PETITIONER : South Eastem Coalfieids Ltd VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Appellate Authon'ty & Others, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish E€ Agnihstri, J. Present: Shri P_S.Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Gary Mukho'padhyay, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER ORAL - (Passed on 12 day 0f ApriL 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amount of 3 g‘atuity could not be ‘paid to the respondent No. 3 pursuant to the pending departmental enquiry: However; on the direction of the Controiiing'Authority dated 27.03.2006 (Annexure P/2), which was communicated to the petitioner on 25.04.2006, the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of gratuity to the respondent No. 3. Thereagainst, the petitioner, after depositing the amount of gratuity with the Appellate Authority, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The saute was also dismissed on 7.11.2006 (Annexure P/l). In the meantime, the departmental enquiry was concluded and resulted into imposition of ‘eensure’. In View of imposition of ‘censure’, the gratuity amount cannot be withheld, which the respondent No. 3 is entitled to. In View of foregoing, nothing survives for adjudication in this matter. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 concurs with the above stated facts and prays for leave to make an application before the Appellate Authority for withdrawal ofthe gratuity amount. 3. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove: the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the respondent No. 3 to make appropriate application for withdrawal of the gatuity amount, if so advised—before the Appellate Authority, wherein the gratuity amount is lying. I i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t Sd/- . i " J