A tLE a ,.\ a-7 9-.r<) zt ot-Lo s-* IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(c) 2s37 /201r B.L. KHERA AND ORS ""' Petitioners Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta & Mr. Ankit Lamba Advocates. Versus FCI AND ORS ""' ResPondents . Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney & Mr' Amit -- Sluivastava, Advocates for R-l FCI' -/}i AND F w.P.(c) s73012010 SH. P.P.S. KAPOOR & ORS ""' Petitioners through: Mr. Pramod Gupta &' Mr' Ankit Lamba. Advocates. Versus FCI AllD ORS ""' ResPondents i rhrough: ffi*4ffii,ffffJ,fr'Xirffn CORAMi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAIIAI ENDLAW ORDER oA 06.05.2011 t. This order is in continuation of the order dated 21" April,20II in W.p.(C) No.253712011 . As directed therein, W.P.(C) No.5730/2010 has also beon listed todaY. ll3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified -\ t-1 \ r ,1_: ---+ T' 2. Though the counsel for the petitioners in V'/.P.(C) No.253712011 had on 21't April, 2011 sought time to respond to the reasons stated in the order dated 21s April, 2011 for the petitioners not being entitled to the relief claimed but the counsel for the petitioners has today stated that the respondent FCI has filed/is proposing to file a Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court for transfer of writ petitions ontailing similar question as entailed in these writ petitions and pending before several High Courts to the Supreme Court. It is contended that the respondent FCI also intends to obtain stay of proceeding in all the writ petitions including W'P'(c) No.5730/2010 pending consideration of the 'I'ransfer Petition in the Supreme Court. A copy of the application stated to have been filed in one such writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jaba$ur along with annexures is handed over and taken on record. The counsel for the petitioners seeks adjournment of both the writ petitions pending consideration of the Transfer Petition by the Supreme Court. 3. The counsel for the respondent FCI appearing on advance notice states that he has no instructions qua the proposed transfer petition' 4. I am for the reasons disclosed in Court and not recorded at request of counsel for the petitioners, not inclined to adjourn the matters. cJ zB t Ji -\- -- -vl 5. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw both the writ petitions with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority under the G'atuity Act in terms of the judgrnent of this Court in 8.,S. Gupta Vs. Union of I n dia MANU/DEI I I 42 I 20 LI . 6. The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Appellate fora under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Since the petitioners have not been heard further in pursuance to the order dated 21't April, 20I!, it is clarified that the prima facie observations made in the order dated 21$ April, 20lI would not come in the way of the Appellate Authority considering the mattcr on merits, uninfluenced from the said observations. No order as to costs. MAY o6,20Ll bs.. 3ls [: RAJIV SATIAI ENDLAW, J