Gx2§ HIGH COURT OF CI-HIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 13 14 0f2009 PETITIONER : . B.K. Shrivastava, son of late Shri M.R. Shrivastava, aged about 73 years, Divisional Accounts Officer (Retired), Resident of 22, sB'I Colony, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (CG). VERSUS . The Comptroller Auditor General of India, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Accountant General, Lekha Bhawan, Jhansi Road, Gwalior, District Gwalior (MP). 3. The Accountant General (A&E)—I, 53, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (MP). The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (MP). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'bl :Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present h RESPONDENTS : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th day of March, 2009) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction that the matter may be referred to the High Power Retiral Dues Committee constituted by the State Government. Ms. Singhai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that the dispute involved herein was agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short 'CAT‘). The CAT, by order dated 08.09.1997 (Annexure P/4), permitted the z . / @ petitioner/applicant f0 approach the concerned authorities for settlement of retiral dues and the respondent authorities were also directed to consider and decided the matter of the petitioner within a period of one month by speaking order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition being RA. No. 85/97 whichwas dismissed on 23.02.1998 as no error apparent was found in the order dated 08.09.1997. According to the respondent, the retiral benefits were accordingly settled. The petitioner ‘still aggrieved andflled MA. being No. 1102/2000 before the CAT. The CAT, by order dated 12.10.2001(Annexure P/7) directed the respondents to pay Interest to the petitioner/applicant on the dearness relief at the same rate as paid on the basxc amount ofpension and also directed that the same shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of communication of that order. The order passed by the CAT has been complied with. The petitioner still remained unsatisfied and preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 2092/2002, as according to the petitioner, the interest on the Whole amount was not paid. The same was dismissed on 23.06.2003 for want of prosecution/Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for restoration of the writ petition being, MCC No 174/2006 The same was allowed subject to payment of a sum of Rs 100/— as cost but the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount within the prescribed time ‘and the application was automatically dismissed by virtue of peremptory order. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another application being MCC No. 334/2008 for restoration of MCC No. 174/2006 with an application for condonation of delay of 788 days. The same application was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 05.11.2008 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to explain inordinate delay of 788 days. Since the retiral dues of the petitioner have already been settled, and further, the matter has been considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court, the single Judge cannot sit as an Appellate Court over the Division Bench. Thus, this petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu