-^ ^/ "B € BBFOKB Tfit^ te<^NOURABLB tItaH COURT OF CHHATTISGARK AT^U^fflfe (C.G.l ^C.C.NO. ^ /2004 SWB BSBa (WRIT I»Btma(»N0.1035/20041 PAPER XJNDEtl DISPOSAL PETITIONBRB > 1, ^^ .^€^'i :-y'> ^°':v^' ^n • / ^f '<s* ^ ^. ^ -^"^^ ^^'^ ^s^, ^J rr^: v; @\@,^w v RESPONDENT8 VERSU8 / SMT. PREMBAI WIDOW OF LATE BHAGAT RAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, KBiSID^NT OF VILLAGE AND PO^T - 8AKARELI, VIA - BARAD^R, DISTT. JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) RAGHUNANDAN PRA^AD, SON OF LATE BHAGAT RAM, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, (MINOR), THROUGH : NATURAL GUARDIAN : MOTHER (I.E. THE PETITIONER N0.1), RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST SAKARELI, VIA BARADWAR, DI8TT, JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C,G.) UNION OF INDIA, THROUQH : MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSION^R, REGIONAL OFFICB, N^AR NAVBHARAT PRBSS, RAJBANDHA MAIDAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) ft^ff»Si£ v^;: '^ 4. THE REGIONAL PROVtDBNT FUND COMMISSIONER, STATE OF MADHYA PRADE8H, REGIONAL OFFICE - INDORE (MP) 5. THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, OFFICE OP N^M.D.C., SHANKAR NAGAR ROAD, RAIPUR(C,G.) 6. THE ENFORCEMRNT OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, NEAR CHHATTISGARH BHAWAN, BILA8PUR (C.G.) APPNCATION FOR BXTENSION OF PERIOD TO MAKE REPRBSBNTATION BBFO^E THE AUTHORITIBS XI-HC—78 v 's'^ ^i^Kn-M, ^Til-M^Ko, [®Kni<i^< _____.....?!..:.^;..c:..^.f..^.Z?.^^-. 1?WlT1ET!N?""""""""""""""""""""/"<;>""^200 ^TI^T Tra^T (tell^<i^) 3?i^¥l^ Rrl|sh i?^T 3??^TiFHW z:- <~~. \. ^CTW ^ft^ 3?i^T 18.11.2004 par^ies ShriA,N. Bhakta, counselfoi] Shri Viaay Harit, Sr. Staiidinj AppMcatioii for urgent heaila| With cousent of botli tlie Shri Bhakta, leaiiied couns^ La W.P, No. 1035/2004 preferred| 27.4.2004 Uiis Comt.had du'ectedl 'epresentation raisiiig their grievai-l 3f the respondents along wifh a c| .vitliia 15 days, and on such repre^ a.utliority of tlie respondeuts shall | ii accordan.ee with law as early dionths froni the date of receipt of| that tf aiiy grievaiice stiU. reniaq reniedy available under tlie law. ^ould uot make a representation b^ m.aniage ofthe daught.er of tlie pet| Counsel for Union of Indial application. Havnig considered the facts •fr^- . [DLateiial on record, flie appUcati^ iirected to make a fresh represent^ tlie competent aufliority of tlie resj <=»»i«f<vi<i1iTTW^f ^ 'fe^ iFt^K ^^tfw^?T^T the appMcaiits. ^ Coiinsel for the Union of India, is allowed, tlie matter is heard fiiially, for tlie petitioners submitted that by flie petitioner vide order dated fhe petitioners fo make a detailed ces before fhe competent aufhority ^py af the petition aiid fliis order, ^eiitation being filed, tlie competent decide the same on its owu niexits as possible preferably witliiii two the representation. It is made clear is, the petitiouers niay avail tlie He further submits tlie petitioiiers fore the coiapetent aiithority due to Sioner No.l. has no objection ia a]lowiag tliis aiid cu'cunistaiices of flie case aiid »n is allowed, The petitioners ai'e ition raising their grievaiices before pondents along with a copy of the 5' /' XI-HC—78 'S'^ ^WM^, vSf^WW, 'WW^^ LGC.^O.flS/S-^oA ^T*RTT'a^RT^ -^200 3TI^?T Tra^ ( ^t^<^) ^?i^y^Tf^?NF ^^^H^l^HW ^ Vatti A. ^^TW irftn ^ir^y -^,- petition aiid tliis order, witiiial representation bein.g filed, tlie c^ shall decide the saBie on its o4'n early as possible preferably witli|n of the representation, It is m^-de reiiiams, the petitioners may avap M. C, C. staiids disposed of| Certij5ed copy as per rules.| ^H^F^T 'RW^if ^T^^ <f^^l< ^^tf^qr^n^T a period of 15 days, aiid on sucli 'nipetent autliority of the respondents merits in accordaiice with law as tevo nionths froni tlie date ofreceipt clear that if aiiy grievarice still tlie remedy available under tlie law. Sd/- AefffiglSfi.ieijustice '^. S'^M •.<?&...»'