^^Eii^as .is *1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION No. "3(S>\ OF 2003 c^^ PETITIONER ft$^' ^-^:..- .^•t' ^" •"".^v"'^...-"*' ^y Versus RSSPONDENTS 1. O. P. Verma, aged about 61 years, S/o Late N. P. Verma, retired Chief Municipal Officer, resident of Manendragarh, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration & Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya/ Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary, Urban Administration & Development, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2. 3. .!„. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 381 of2003 Petittoner ^s^^^^^^^ X^. P. Verma Versus Respondents . State of Chhattisgarh & otliers WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Honl3le Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Maaoj Paraajpe, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Shri Yashwant Sin.gh Thalcur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri N. N. Roy, Paiiel Lawyer for fhe respondents. ORDERIOraIJ (Passed on this 22nd day ofJanuary, 2010) Meard. 1. The petitioner has preferred tiiis petitiou iaipugnio.g the order dated 27.12.2002 (Aunexure P/1) whereby aad whereunder a su2ii of Rs. 36,621/- was deducted froni tlie gratuity amiount of the petitioner on tlie ground fliat fhe petitiouer was entitled for tlie benefit ofrevised pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.1999. 2. Durmg the pendency of this writ petition fhe State Goveniment has considered tiie case of tlie. petitioner aiid has graated fhe benefit oftlie revised pay scale to tlie petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Accorduigly, the deduction made on account of tlie revised pay scale deseives to be quashed. 3. In tlie light of tlie subsequent decision taken by fhe State Goveniment by order dated 28.10.2009 (Annexurc <A?), nofhing survives ia tliis petition for adjudication. The iaipugned order dii'ectmg deduction ofRs. 36,621/- does notszirvive aad as such is qiiashed. 4. The respondents/autliorities ai'e accordio.gly directed to recalculate tlie gratuity aiaount on tlie basis of the subsequent order dated 28.10.2009. If aay amount has been wrongly deducted the same shall be paid to fhe petitioner forthwifh. 5. Iu view of tiie foregoiag, the petition stands disposed of No order asto costs, Thak.ir SatishK.Agnihofiri Judge