^ SlN6l£BENCH 1 ;1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION N0. OF 2005 PETITIONER: ^ /.M ^y/ Ganga Prasad Gypta, S/o Siljiri Lallu Prasad Gupta, agfed about 65 years, Occupat^iri ^\ny / ^>^/ /y ^y ">y RESPONDENT: Retired Lamps Manager, R/d Infront of Nagar Pali^ Chandia Road, Umarl District - Umaria, (M.P.) .^1 V E RSU S y" Chief Executive Officek'/1 Manager, District Co-operat^ Kendriya Bank Maryac^it, Ambikapur, Digtt Surguja^ (C.G.) /' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF T: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT^M M lfcl THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARL ETC. d>i DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. ^ET ^?'RTR^T, y-^^4i<^, Rc^i^y^ rf-^ . .^.-.f.: .^°.'. .<^.t> &.S 1 TFTBT^ITq?—'•— 3nt?Tq^P(^ff^[) 3n^$T^TR4icb WTT 3TT^$T9n7ra? ^200^ s^rrm^rfNan^^T 21.09.2005 Mr. A.N.Pandey, tearned None appears for the resp) 4?I^Ic6^^ +ii+ioT^rfei<Sl ^Rrl^K ^3<^T3ni?T ^ounsel for the petitioner. ondent. Learned counsel for thep^titioner submits that that petitioner was compulsory retired from tt' 1.08.2000 by the order dated petitioner made an application b| le post of Lamps Manager w.eJ. 28.07.2000 (Annexure P-2). The sfore the controlling authority under Rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity ^ct, 1972. The controtling authority passed an order on 16.03.2(}04 (Annexure P-3) directing the respondent to make a payment as gratuity. Thereafter, reviev^ dismissed by the controlling a< of Rs. 1,67,669/99 to the petitioner was filed and the same was also thority. The respondent filed an appeal under provisions of Pa^ment of Gratuity Act; 1972 before the appeltate authority i.e. Dy. Labour Commissioner Chhattis.^ »abour Commissioner, Office of the larh. The appeltate authority vide order dated 14.06.2005 (Annexpre P-1) quashed th©earlier orders dated 16.03.2004 (Annexure 1-3), 17.03.2004 (Annexure P-4) & 16.07.2004 (Annexure P-6) p controiling authority and rei^ controlling authority to decide respondent. The petitioner has file<| 14.06.2005 (Annexure P-1) p< appeal case No. 100/PGA/200^| assed in review petition, by the landed the matter back to the the case afresh after hearing the this writ petition under Articles 226^227 of the Constitution c(f tndia impugning the order dated ssed by the appellate authority in /syf) vivq r«t«io^;y-^l^l4,^rti^y^ 4iHrti^m^ 3H^^T<CTf^lfcp ^TTW^^TSRW ;'eArina .Vi).:.p.'.<oo:..(A.?..^. ^^Tq^p(<^t3^) W^200^~ ?^:IT ?^rf^T3n^^T -^- <hNfo41-i ^i«lriT<ffei<Sl<R|^|^ ^sri^Tan^^ After hearing the learnep counsei for the petitioner and perusing the records, 1 am of tlle view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by <h@ appettate authority as such this Court cannofi tnterfere with the| order of the appeltate authority. However,in the interest ofjustic|e, it is desirable that the controlling aythority be directed to decide t back to the controlling authori ie case, which has been remanded y by the appellate authority vide order dated 14.06.2005 (Anne|(ure P-1)expeditiously, preferably within a period oftwo months, fr^m the date of receipt ofthis order. !n view ofthe foregoing, t(ie petition stands disposed of. Consequ^ntiy, alf pendin of. ^ applications also stand disposed Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge SFYFS/2005-20,000 / ^