w C^r iv^. ^ 31'R^te B'sfi®!^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P fS1.No. $ S<SJ /2008 PETITIONER ^^ •(%:.'• ^^ ^yy ',/'.•y ^ ^ &'•'' RESPONDENTS : ^Satyanarayan Dewangan, S/o. G.P. Dewangan, aged about 56 years, Retired Branch Manager, Jila Sahakari Krishi and Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, at present R/o. Kamla Computer, Hatri Chowk, Bialspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS \--rl The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Co- operative Societies, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ , 'f^. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahakari Krishi and Gramin . Vikas Bank Maryadit, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa \^3. President/Board of Director, Jila Sahakari Krishi and Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa ^ Registrar, Department of Co- operative Societies, Raipur (C.G.) y./5. Additional Registrar, Department of Co-operative Societies, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^^ E-Ti 's^ -^nw^, w^wis, '^'viwy, ^,P-g)i^.3.^?!/2,^g' ?T'CR^T (' siRaT-wl^ira? ^n sn^i ^^t^r gwiiw^iregsn^i SB : Hon'bSe Shri Manindra IVIohalh Shrivastava, J. .06-; Shri Goutam Khetrapal, courjsel for the petftroner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel La'.vy| 5 on advance copy. Shrl Sushobhit Singh, couns) Heard. This petition has been filed| dated 16-05-2008 (Annexure P-1 whereby the revision ofthe petitiort account of pendency of department of the petitioner namely gratuity an<| ^T^t^'^'r ^w^i ^ t^st ~<f^-w.!< ^sifsq aii^i earned counsel for the partfes jointiy subm'rt that the departrnental enquir/ has already been complel has been imposed on the petitioner Learned counsel for the peti suit has already been withdrawn b^ want to settle their dispute outside Learned counsel for respor concluded, the petitioner's ciaim gratuity and provldent iund sha!l b payable, the same shaU be reteasei lii that vievi/ of the matte directing respondent No.2 to con< gratuity and provident fund in the X \ department enquiiy has already fc| T forthe State/respondents N0.1, 4 & for respondents Mo.2 & 3. by the petitioner aggrieved by order i) passed by the respondent Mo.1, br has been dismissed holding that on a! enquiry and civii suit, the retiral dues provident fund could not be reieased. id and order of penaitt/ of "Censure" tioner submitted at the bar that the civii Banshilal by recording that the parties he Court. dents No.2 & 3 submitted that as the uit' has been withdrawn and defc'artinental enquiiv has atready beei ibr pavment of retiral dues namelv ; considered and if it is found due and J without undue deiav. this petition is finally dispossd off iider petitioner's claim for 'payment oT' light of the subsequent events that ffie een concluded and the suit has been XI-HC—78 ss^v ^i W\* gqisii^ig?qw Turnsns 7=( '^nw^, yii-Mjie, fadW^ sn^! 'gft?I3!lt?I —"2,. vvithdrawn. The entire exercise three months from the date of ree '^I^i^t^ 'RTH?^ ^ '^^i' •(.r^^K Ihould be completed within a penoc c^ipt of a copy ofthis order. Sd/- jManindra Mohan ShmastavaN Judge p;