"'•'s^ ^ {? ' / c IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAITIfflARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PSTITION N0. /2/ 3 OF 2001 PEriIION® ?• ( 1 p.. ^y- &*•• RESPOEIDEICTS ;- (1) (2) (3) (4) Brooks Higher Secondary Sdiool, Motimpur, Jarhagaon, Through; its Prineipal Sat. H. Prakash Wi£e of Shri ,Daniel Prakash, aged 59 years, ' at Motiapur, Jarhagaon, Takbatpur, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur, Chbattisgarh. V E,B S(J S The Controlling Authority (Paynent o.f Gratuity Act)-cum- £abour Otticer, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Sfari C.P. Samual, Retired Teacher o£ Brooks Higher Secoadary School, Resident o£ Hission Coapound, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, .Oahattisgarh. Sfari L.K. Lootiiar, Retired Teacher, Resident of Sfaaran Nagar, Takhatpur, district Bila^iur, Cihhatti'sgarh. Shri G.P. Pandey, Retired Teacher, Brooks Higber Secondary School, Resident of Belsari, Takhatpur, District: Bilaspu&, Qihatti sgarh, w WRIT PE'CITION UNDER ARIICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIOH OF INDIA. k* iI-HC-22 ^^ -'iiiiwi, e.al^'ie, isswi'My 31^1 qn ftTwan^ '^RN"?Tf^FT a"s ^lftS _..t.>..:.t:...U.\.^......... an^i^giwgftff qaqfepN'qitRff tf feA ^3lNI[3D^n Slui Prasliaiit Mislu-a, 4'ouiisel for Uie Pelilioiier. Shri Vintxi neshmiikh, Shri Vinod Dcshinukh s [coiinsel for T.he RespondRnt No. 1. jubmits that thc mattcr is covcrcd by the decision of ttie Divisi<|>n Bench of tliis Comt passed in W.P. No. 1329/2001 (Direct|)r, Raipur Diocess Educational ^ociety, Raipui- vs. U.K. Mjashi and OtUcrs) and also thc decision of tlie Single Ben<) (Steel Authority of India ^ Payment of Gratuity Act, Dufl This writ petition has b| the Constitution of India ag^inst the order dated 11/5/2001 passed by Uie respondent No.] Payraent of Gratuity Act, 19^ Payment of Gratiiity Act. O that thc provisions of this A< petitioner that as thc limitati p for some thae the authority i of prosecuting tlus petition, •h passed in W.P.No.2653/2001 . ^ ^ 8. C^>ritrolling Authority under •gand Another). ;en filed under Article 226/277 of 1 Controlling Authority under Uie 2. Shri Deshrdukh subinits that the pelitioiicr lias all.eniat.ijve reiuedy of appeal uiider Uie iiinse] for the petitioner siibmits :t arc not applicablc. It ia statcd other side that tliis may a^so be taken as ground m appeal. It is however, submitNd bv fhe leamed coLinsel for the on for the appeal is 60 days, and, :sell'was not notified aiid because time for filuig appeol has lapsed; V? ^i-ft^--. ^^T ••qP-iRPl, sra an^r'^i 'f^lNsD^T stFi!cti •ylia ^•? ^ll|!!'s^ »:,tq||9»a H \e ^^Ni sn^w TRIIW^to — "2- cdWScl^fl'] flWdf ^fvS\f»^\<. ^sipira sii^i therefbre, he prayed that sona^ llie petilioiier is iioL prejudice^ As prayed, pemiission is Having considcrcd thc case and material on record, it| application for condonation of considercd by thc Authority the fact tliat for some time and for such the petitioner was pendlng. Acconduigly this writ ^i withdrawn with the liberty afoj ConsequenUy M.W.P.I)! I.A.5188/2001 & I.A. 10248/0; direotion naay be issued BO that iranted. fbcta and circumstanccs of thc 1 is directed that in case suitable jdelay is raade the same shaU be ^inpatheticaUy keeping in view itselfwas ndt notiGed praved fhis coitrt and petition the|Autliority hati C^ f^ v^>*^^. as per rules. |etition stands disposed of as besaid. So.269/2001, 1.A.5515/2001, also stand disposed of. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ^ '•I