'^•^-^Lru v~^f -^'^ % IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR MGCJlo. l4L- /^S W.P.No.5740/2005andW.P.No.g80/2007 Order passed by the HonTsle High Court on dt.7thMay '08 Presided over bv Hori'ble Justice^ Shri S.K.Agnihotriiee fc PETITIONER :- ^- °>^'"'^ District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Bilaspur, through the Chief Executive Officer, District Co- Central Bank Ltd., «*?.--;'- 'w-^ ^f'^r)^-v"'... ~'r'~~~' .- •" Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS :- 1. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 2. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,; Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Vijay Singh Thakur, s/o Bhuwaneswar, retired Aecountant; R/P Erishna Nagar Ward, near Shankar flour Mill, Juna Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, ChhattisgaTh. ^ ^: AN PETmONER SEEKING CLARIFICATION AND PRQPER DIRECTION FROM THE HON'BLE COURT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OI? THE ORDER. OF THE PENSION REDRESSAL COMMITTEE MHEN THE CQMMITTEE ©ID N.0T CONSIDER THE MATTER AS PERTHE DIREGTI©|$- )FWlSHONBl^^QUl lNrT'S ORDEROt.X5.Q8.li ^^•i! '•s^ SfiBWI satgiSisessstsswi ^^^^^^^@ft HIGH CO'URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. No. 141 of2009 v PETITIONER RESPONDENTS District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Bilaspur. V-ERSUS Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh & Others. AN PETmONER SEEKING CLARIFICATIQN AND PROPER DIRECTION FROM THE HON'BLE COLTRT_£QRIMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER OF THE PENSION REDRESSAL COMMnTEE WHEN COMMITTEE DD3 NOT CONSIDER THE MATTER AS PER THE T'PTT? DIRECTION.OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITS OSRDER DATED 7.5.09. SB: HQii'MeShn Satish K. AgnihotniJ. Present: Shri S.L.Kurmi.Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri Suhobhit Singh, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDERfORAL^ (Passsd onlOa'dayofMay, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner seeks pennission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberfy to file a substantive petition. 2. Leamed couiisel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits tliat pemiitting the petitioner to challenge the order dated 04.12.2008 (Amiexure P/l) passed by the Pension Comnuttee, which ha&been done pursuant to the earlier order passed by tliis Court on 07.05.2008 (Annexure P/2) is misuse ofjudicial process. 3,. The above contention of the leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 is rejected as the petitioner has every right to challenge the order passed by the Pension Connmttee, if he feels aggrieved by the said order. 4. Accordingly, tlie writ petition is dismissed as wiflidrawii with fhe aforestated liberty, ifso advised. ; Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge