BEF013 HON'BITE. HTGH CCXJRT OF G^IHATTISOARH AT B IL A it Fetltion No. ;$ S 2000 "etltionez- : nl ,"(- GY'Si'; RRAXASH 3SLO? 3/0 Shri Jeevsnlal Selot aci'ea about 72'vesrs, r/o Suertei- No. 2G,Street 34 Sector-1, Bhilai Sted asnt Town?hip, Bhllai Nac;sr, Tah. 5- Distt. DUR3 (Chhattisaarh) VERSUS. V-M' ^y .-^" RSSFONDSNT3 ;- 1. HI3H COIIRT OF MADHYA ERADS3H Through ~ • Reglstrar General , High Court of Macthya Pr-adssh Jsbalpur ('H.F.) 2. STES, aTHORITy OF TyOTALZMITSD Through '- Ms.na ging Director, Bhilal Steel Plant, Steel iiutborj.ty of India J-«lmite3, I3PAT BHnWAN Bhilal Kagar, ®ah.& Dlstt. 8URG (Chhatt.S.sgarh) . PSTITIOK TJN132S0 .3RTICLES 226/227 OF TKE GONSTITUT.TON p' \.-- OF TNDlA wr XI-HC-22 sn^r^ R-fi<ti3Ti^?r OTWdfStT ^•S^w^^iL.;^-, .^^—?..-•—"'.•,- . . •.. ; - 3^ "=INI<'I<<, ®Tf)ti'ie,RiciKiy 3ll3,?l Maqi L»J. l~' *II*ICTI sn*<l<* ••-•••"•••"••••y ^j- 2000 311^1 ^•WIWHf^T ttie On a mention being made t-ieard Mr. V.6. Tamaskarl The petitioner's case is Hioh Court of Judica-hjre at transferred to the High Court dssted 18th March, 1959, the| Hindustan Steel Limited, Bhila| from 1-7-1957 to 31-7-1959, the post and that was accepte<( becember, 1960, thersby continuous service in the servl entitled to get pro-rata psnsior( by respondent No.l in spite reminder. The petitioner had has his entire service record. Mr. V.6. Tamaskar, learn^ number of times, the petitior|i No.l for fixation of pro-rata service record is also called bi' but respondent No.l is not pas^ Therefore, learned counsel fi the matter is taken up for hearing. counsel for the petitioner. ^ha.'t on 1-3-1948 he was appointed in the N|agpur, and thereafter, his services were fp-f Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur. Vide order petitioner was ssrit on deputatson to i, for a period of two years with effect |hereafter, the petitioner resigned from °tii<ifci41-f iiH<iTfftei^t'<Ri«i< ^srf^irsn^T ith by the High Court vide ordsr dated 1S petitioner completed tO years of ce of respondent No.l, therefore, he is as per the rules, which is not being given of the repeated representations and lastly seryed with respondent No.2 who ;d counsel for the petitioner submits thot tior|er made representations to respondent pension of the petitioner, even though respondent No.l f"om respondent No.2, iing any order with regard to his request. f^irther submits that respondent No.l be "\rs—^ XI-HC-22 sn^r^r l^:ri°f;3n^T shtfitiyfed Soma 3^ "Miiirtti, ®Tfl*rid,Ridiuy *11'4l:tl »RI^ SliSi^yach ..0).^.f=^ W]; 200© 3(1^1 ^•WIWflf^T Ti^- directed to decide the petition him since 21stApril, 2000 (Ar The limited prayer mad^ fair, genuine csnd reasonable. directed to consider the repre; same after considering al! the period of three months from tl^ in accoroance with law. It is ayi|ii by the petitioner is not petitioner wiil be at Sibert/ to No.l. With the directions aforfe; Consequently, I.A.Nos.2|43; disposed of. Parties are entitied fordertified COQV of'this ordsr. +i'i<ri-i<(i-< *<i*^cfftffe'<fl (.RIWK ^>3lf^IT3TI^T ;r's representation which is pending with nnejxure P-13). by learned counsel e3ppeacs to be just, Ln the cir'cumstances, respondent No.l is |entation of the petitioner and decide the points raised by 1+ie petitioner within a *'f\e date of receipt of a copy of this order, clear that if the representation made lab!e with respondent, No.l then the send a copy of the same to respondent said, the petition stands disposed of. 12/2004 and 5324/2004 also stand Sdi- L.C ,000 3utee