(U? ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER: ^ ^A^W -•^•'Y x^-^ ^••"^%.>'t< ^' ^>- Writ Petition (S) No.->.^y..of 2009. Digambar Lal Rawat S/o Shri.Dukhu Ram Yadav, age 46 years, Persona! No. 138516, B.B.M. Bhi!ai Stee! Plant R/o Qr.No. 12/ K, Risaii Sector, Bhllai, District - Durg (C. G.) RESPONDENTS: \%: i-^ <^. ^ \"^^ 1. Steel Authority of India Llmited, Lodhi Road N€>W Deihi.Pin - 110003. ^' 2. Managlng Director Bhilai Stee! Plant Bhilal Ispat Bhavan Bhi!al Tehsi! and District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 3. r Smt, Daya Bal w/o Shri. Digamber Yadev age 40 years R/o viliage ^"^ Dundera, P.S. Utal, District - Durg . Chhattlsgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE_CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WPJT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION OR ORDER_ EJ.C. \ 'ysf r^i^i<yi^, yal^^Ko, f®ldl-(-llj,< . W,/?,($')^-^-CC1/^ RWF *II<<CTI »*iicn " " " """"""""""""7"""^ 200 ^?T TRW (l?^q<i?) ^ii^r ^t R['ii<sb <?sff 3?TI^T SD*liqi ^TW^ft^^iH^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Marsindra Mohan Shm 18-08-20-t0 Shri Uttam Pandey, counsel Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel for n ShriAmnd Dubey, counsel for Heard, Grievance of the petitioner, as v( though the petitioner has retired from retirement, the respondents-Management Learned counsel appearing for th ground of pendency of dispute belween in the Civil Court and in the absence respondent-Management ought not to petitioner On the other hand, submission of & 2 is that having come to know about seeking declaration partition and perman complications, Management has not relea< awaiting the orders which may be passe< the suit itseff. Learned counsel for respondent ^ order for grant of maintenance in favour o| Durg in Case No.840 of 2007, and theref amount of maintenance. Learned couns^l that if on the ground of pendency of di respondent No.3, the Management has the petitioner, there is no illegality in the Leamed counsel for respondent No.3 cpi<ii<?i<flvi "HR^ff ^f 'fe^t <r»i^i< ^3TRTH37T^T astava,J. for the betitioner tspondents No.1 &2. resp|ondent No.3. {ntilated through this petition, is that sefrvice under the scheme of voluntary not releasing his retira! dues. }^ petitioner submits that only on the tt(e petitioner and the respondent No.3 of|there being any injunctlon order, the with|ield the payment of retiral dues of the jearned counset for respondents No.1 Ifiting of suit by the respondent No.3 t^nt injunction, in order to avoid lega! ^ed retira! dues ofthe petitioner and is either on injunction appiication or in Jo.3 submits that there is already an 1 respondent No.3 by the Family Court, fore, the petitioner is liable to pay the for respondent No.3 further submits spute between the petitioner and the v^ithheld the payment of retirat dues of iction of the respondent-Management. Iso submits that the petitioner and ^T, <^^r<?n^~FS/147—2/2010—1,00,000. m SwS. r r =F ?•-" <~v\ '^ ^".XI-HC—78 3TT^l ^T f^t^ ^T8H 3n^?T^RW Tumane ^mvn »»*<ic»» -5^[ r^l^lcl<4, ytll^4IC, f®i<rft-M^< \^.t {^(\ rcu. ^CT^q/69 "T'""^% 200 ^?T ^^^! ( yii^^T) '^TTWHf^f3:{T^T —-2-'^" respondent No.3 have reached a fina settlement is not being paid to the petiti< It cannot be disputed that the p€ scheme of voluntery retirement on pendlng betoveen the petitioner and order, or any injunction order or oth< jurisdiction restraining the Managem< petitioner. Learned counsel for respor bring to the notice of the Court any relating to withholding of retiral dues 01 involving a retired employee. In this view ofthe matter, in the justified in withhoiding release of retiral of pendency of civil dispute involving Court of competent jurisdiction. restr^ expected to release the retiral dues of so far as grievance set out by responc for the concerned respondent to take ^ the law to enforce rights as is claimed With the aforesaid observation, )^titioner has retired from sen/tee underthe ^1-01-2009. Though, some litigation is re^pondent No.3, there is no finat or interim ^rwise by the Civil Court of competent mt from releasing retirat dues of the jdents No.1 & 2/Management could not brovision contained in the sen/ice rules the ground of pendency of civil dispute CM^F<1<fll "HR^if ^ 'fe^t iFt^K '^^tR'RSTT^T settlement but the amount reached in ner. |opinion ofthis Court, Management is not |dues ofthe petitioner only on the ground |he petitioner !f there is no order of any |ning Management, the Management is (he petitioner within a reasonable time. In |ent No.3 is concerned, it would be open Ippropriate remedy availabte to her under Uv her. |ihis petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge