That, the Hon'ble Court may further be phased ta direct any. cther writ/arden’dire Rah to the respcndents that it deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 7.2 Ccst sf the petmori may kindh’ be a!!ewed.” 2. On hearing {earned counse! appearmg far the parties and an perusa! of the dans an h m it appears that a Secceeskn ocamk ppeded te te weadga Case . @99‘ hied the rponden NM. is pending in the Ceurt of Ciit udge Cities-L ikuntr. Dietrict —.Keria. The petitioner has ie this etitic or gn f retiri dues of Late Ramcharan. who was hd nn f rat o a orin in ‘atkna oiiiery of S.E.C.L and died on 9.1 .1EE99. wkg Ko c . he disped uestions sf act are invoived in this case as the .V T ui q fs aetitione N.1 nd respodn .1 are ciaiming to be the iegaiiy r o a the net No eded wife of Late charan. wd Ram hribishek Sina rnd counsei apearing fer the respondents No. ' 2 and suits tha s f as t of gratuity is coneerned, the 3 bm t o ar paymen esponde o. and 3 .hav’ aiready deposited a sum of rnts N 2 e 5 wi e Cong h Rs. 13.94% th th ntroiii Autority under Payment of Gratuity 1972 a A L m ‘Act, nd ssistant abour Comissioner (Centrai), xShahdoi (M, on 18.1 2. Th petitioner h iiedia Case No. SH-48(7) 2002 P) 002 e ad i bere the Controin uthort for release of gratuity amount. The onimmng uthority vrde order dared 8‘“ July, 2on4 (Annexure a-2i2) ha tegoricall recordd the finding, t despite several opportunities s cay e a grante t he etitiner (aptican hei‘, the petitioner has not come d o t po pt tern forward to stake oiaim for grant f payment of gratuity; thus closed her o th case. The oney stil tyin wit the Controiling Authority. it e m is l g h appars tha sinc the fadu being ife of Late Ramcharan is in e t e m of w disut and the sae is pening ieration before the Civil Jude, pe m d consd Baikunt‘ the petitioner ad n eared before the Controiiing Authoity for ayent of gratuity unt. ~ No by est v J Bahpu , SAh h, {eae p fo llg Aiy C A hpurz h ot app r pm amo KEV 5. Be that as it may‘ this Court in exetcise of its jurisdictian under Artide r 226/227 of the Constitution cannot decide disputed question of facts of this nature, wherein oral and other evidence are required to be adduced and examined. Since the matter is already pending consideration in Succession Case Nc. 6/99, filed by the respondent No.1, befere the _ Court 0f Civil Judge; Class-i, Baikunthpur, District — Koria, no relief can be granted-to the petitioner. ln view of the foregoing, this petition deserves to be and is dismissed , accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .