H!GH COURT OF CHHATTLSGARH AT BILASPUR •BLE SHR! H.L. DATTU, CJ & 'BLE SHR! V.K. SHRS' ;TITIi .t^ie'BETi State of Chhattisgarh through 'he Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Weifare Department, BiSaspur /! S^I"i^'5AAiC'.' 'S»'P- \\^l ti idiuia^^iti i^ Vs. 'S P.D. Bhatt, Rstired District Rehabilitation Officer of Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, resident of Nehtu Nagar, Biiaspur (ChhattSsgari-i)' Ths State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretai-y, Panchayat & Socia! Weifare Department, Bhopal Regisfrar, Madhya Pradesh Adminisfrative Tribunai, Jabalpur 'YKJ Presenl; Shri Sumesh Baja.i, Go'.'t. Advocate Cor the petitioner/State. Shri V.R. Tiwarl, counse! for respondent No.1 Shri Rajeev Shrsvastava, founse! for respondent No.2. (Passed on 16 March, 2007) The foSiowing orai ordsr of thg Court was passed H.L- Daffu. C..I cs<^C3.^''LihEt l^a,?*^ he State ofChhattisgarh is the petsfioner in thls writ petition. It calis io qusstion the correctness or otherwiss Qf the order oassed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabaipur, in O.A. No.2475/99 dated 09.01.2001. By the impugnsd order, the Trlbunat had directed the State of Madhya Pradssh to settie ai! the termina! benefits of the petitioner with snterest within a particuiar time frame. (2) The State of Chhattisgarh 'through its Joint Dlrector has prssented this writ petition questioning the order passed by the Tribunai. During the per.dency of the writ petition , an affidavit is fi'ed by one Shrl Suni! Kujur, Secrstary Department of Social Welfars, Mantralaya, Raipur dafed 18th March 2004. tn the said affidavit, 't is stated that ai! the payments due to respondent No.1 in this writ petition 'nave been psid by the State of Chhattisgarh, in compiiance of t'ne order passed by ths Tribunal i.n O.A. Mo.2475,'1999 dated 09.01.2001.. (3) Since t'nere is tota! impiementation of the ordsr passed by the Tribunai without keeoina any liberti/ for them to asitate this writ petition, we are of the opinion that the relief soug'nt for 'by the petitioner in this writ petition need not be granted by us. (4) Shri V.R. Tiwari, Searned counsei appea'ing for the first respondent wouid su.bmit that the first respondent wouid not make any further claim for non-payment of any ot'ner air'ounts due to hlm, either by vray of terminal benefits or by way of beiated payment of interest, either before the Stats of C-hhattisgarh or bsfore ths State of M.P. The memo so filed by learned counse! appearing for respondent No.1 is made a part ofthis Court's order. (5) in view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the reiief sought for in this writ petition need not be considersd by us. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. if it is possibie and » QtS^ n:^T" •••"• "-' 3 permissibie, the State of Chhattisgarh is entitled to ctaim refund of whatever amounts paid to fhe petitioner from the State of Madhya Pradesh. Ordered accordlngly. Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava SdA Judge ChiefJustice