\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT‘BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE HON’BLE SHRI SATISH SHRI JAGDISH K. AGNIHOTRI, BHALLA, J. Ag. C.J. & x Writ Petition No. 31 66 of 2004. 1. The Chief Post Master General, Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur, C.G.) Supdt. Of Post Offices, Raigarh Division, Raigarh (C.G.). Petitioners Versus 1. Prakash Chandra Mishra, aged about 53 years, S/o Shri Satya Narayan Mishra, Retd. Sub Post Master, Resgondent: éi Post Ofti District : Korea (C 2. Sub— Area Mana South Eastern Co ce, Goderipara, .G.). ger, Kurasia Colliery alfields Limited, Chirmiri Area, Korea (C.G.). Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India Present: Shri S.K. Beriwal Central Government Standing Counsel with Shri A.K. Baraik, counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.S. Marhas, counsei for the respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. JUDGMENr E? (Deiivered on I OHUanuary, 2008) The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hon’ble Jagdish Bhalla, Ag. C.J. : \ This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal; Jabalpur Eench, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as “ the Tribunal”) dated 17‘“ June, 2004 whereby the order of recovery of penal rent from the applicant/ respondent No.1, dated 02.07.1998 was quashed with a direction to the authorities not to' further recover the "e r arnount of penal rent from the applicant. It was further clarified that the M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, Ag. C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. R Writ Petition No. 3166 of 2004. Petitioners The Chief Post Master General, Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur, C.G.) 2. Supdt Of Post Offices, Raigarh Division, Raigarh (C.G.). Versus Resgondent: 1. Prakash Chandra Mishra, aged about 53 years, S/o Shri Satya Narayan Mishra, Retd. Sub Post Master, Post Office, Goderipara, District : Korea (C.G.). Sub— Area Manager, Kurasia Coiiiery South Eastern Coamelds Limited, Chirmiri Area, Korea (C.G.). M Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia resent: Shri S.K. Beriwal Central Government Standing Counsel with Shri A.K. Baraik, counsel for the petitioners. Shri RS. Marhas, counsel for the respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. JUDGMENT (Delivered on (OKJanuary, 2008) The following Judgment of the Court was delivered b Hon'bre Jagdish sharia, Ag. c.J. : ‘ ’ This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as " the Tribunal") dated 17‘? June, 2004 whereby the order of recovery of penal rent from the applicant/ respondent No.1, dated 02.07.1998 was quashed with a direction to the authorities not to further recover the amount of penal rent from the applicant. lt was further clarified that the .'§~ P y r penal rent from the appHcant/ respondent No.1, dated 02.07.1998 was quashed with a direction to the authorities not to further recover the amount of penai rent from the appiicant. it was further clarified that the amount of penal rent already recovered from the applicant, be paid to him Within a period of three months and the authorities may charge normal licence fee from the applicant as per the relevant rules. The applicant/respondent No.1, a Central Government employee working as Postal Assistant filed an Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the order of recovery of penal rent without any authority, jurisdiction and competence and prayed for refund of the deducted amount towards penal rent to the applicant with interest. The original application was allowed by the impugned order dated 17‘“ June, 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have tiled this writ petition. interestingly, the argument ‘on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners had filed a writ petition (W.P.‘ No.2563/2004) against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 1?”‘ March, 2004 whereby the order of compulsory retirement was quashed and are hopeful that the petition would be allowed and in such event interference has been prayed for. Writ Petition No.2563/2004 was heard and it has been dismissed by a separate order. Since no other point was pressed, automatically this writ petition also faits. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. sd/— — \L 11 Acting Chief Justice j" f. Sd/— K Judge if t, Satish K.- Agnihotri i