'viaNi do NoiiniiisNoo 3Hi do 9zz aiioiiav aaQNn N6tlU3diiaM jQO^mtte^BN -, ^ S 4iopaug-s6=iey3;ui—H4py®6HS—>^^>t--tg^,;9- <, .Y "-- ^!'''!"1 1; jy'Ji:'id6sN-±HMA-'^>p&»e-iS]®tpt®©-S-i •s . ? 'Y^Z<-! ^»""f A^^-^^^)^ ^- ^"-) y^.nt-til''y~v \° ''! (03) jndiey 'BAB|BJ)UB|/\| •UBABya^jiiia 'S 'X 'O 'uo!)eonp3 |eoiUL|saj. 'Ajeisjoeg 8i|l q6noj4i 'qjeBsineqijO p Steig ^f' (30) -indiey 'ABoiouqosi j.o &inwsu| |euo!}e|\| 'JOPSJIQ sqi •e •jndiey 'A6o|OUL|osi 10 sinii}su| |BUO!)BN 'jopsjiQ 341 q6noji|} (33) jndiey 'A6o|ouL|03i p ainiiisui leuojieN sqi •^ ,?'^" ^ r^-/' ^..< ^ ^o.)^' LO' •iy~-' •*-. "I* .. .--•e^^ •!4|SQ M3N 'BAe|ej)ue^| 'uoi)eonpg .••' ...••V]\., caiCV^^'' ^ ^-^ j8i)B!|-) p tusiuyedso '}usiudo|8Aea seojnossy ueujnH }o AJ}SIUI|/\| 'AjB)8J09g eq) qBnojq) 'eipU) ^o uoiun •|. /^}?-'"' ^ >•• rstuepuodsay (QO) ^ndiey 'jezeg uejjeg 'siBjoioejiQ 'qjBBsifleyyo p tuaiuujsAOQ 'uo!ieonp3 isoiuqoei 'jopsJiQ se Bui^ow, A[}uasajd 'sjesA 1.9 inoqe paBe 'ieg's'H "4S s)^/o/g '|Bg •s •a '-IQ snsjSA :jauo!}!}0d •800Zt~~^^j'Ott (8) uoffffed »UM yndsviTaj.v HavosilivHHO Jo lanoo HOIH 3Hi NI HIGH COLTRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 4329 of2008 PETm0^7ER RESPONDENTS Dr. D.S.Bal. VERSUS Union oflndia & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hun'Me Shri Satish K. Agmhetri, J. Present: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant S.G. for tfae respondent No. 1 . Slii-i S.S.Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and 3. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 4. 2. (Passsd oa 22nd day of April, 2010) At tiie very outset, leamed counsel appeai'ing for the pefitioner submits that he does aot want to press the reiief dause No. 10.(ii) to 10.(v) at this stage. However, in the eventuality, cause of action arises, flie petitioner may be graiited liberty to make a represeatation to the respoadent authorities or to approach flus Court. However, fhe petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent No. 1 to 3 to issue the last pay certificate to the petitioner. The case ofthe respondent No. 1 to 3 is that the petitioner has left the post of Director (I'c), National Institute of Tectooiogy, Raipur and thereatter, he has joined fhe post of Additional Director, Techiiical Educatioti, Govenanent of Chhattisgarh. Aii amount ofRs. 17,53,779/- given to the petitioner for organizing the Golden Jubilee function ofthe respoiident No. 2 and 3 has still not been settled and reconciled. Tlius, the grant of last pay certificate wouid come iii way of recovery of any amount fi'om the petitioner, ifany, in fiiture. Therefore, tlie gi'ant oflast pay certificate to the pefitioner would prejudice the case of the respondent No. 1 to 3. Leamed couiisel furtlier subinits that the petrtioner has lefi the oflice of the respondent No. .2 and 3 on 14.09.2006 and as sucli, he is not entitled to last pay certificate. Sliri Bhaduri, leanied Paiiel Lawyer appearing for the State'respondent No. 4, relying on a letter dated 21.07.2008 (.'Wiexure P/25), addressed Ai^r to fhe Director, National Institute of Technology, has made it clear that wilhholding of last pay certificate on account of non-settlement of Rs. 17,53,779/- is not proper. The certificate has nothing to do wilfa flie reconeiliation or recovery. There is no dispute with regard to the fact fhat no enquiry is pending against the petitioner till date. It appears that oiily a request lias been made by the respondent No. 1 to 3 to the State Govenmient to mitiate wf eiiquiry against the petitioner, but nothiiig has happaied till date. Thus, the contention ofleamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 3 appears to be baseless and frivolous. If any enquir;' has not been initiated till date aiid ifthere is oiily contemplation, after a period of four years, how can the petitioner be declined grant of last pay certificate. Even otherwise, the graiit of certificate does not cany any pa>'nient alongwith it and lurtiier it does not give any authority to the petitioner to wifhdraw aiiy dues from the office ofthe respondent No. 2 and 3 oa tiie basis ofthe said certificate. Having regard to the facts srtuation of tfae case wherein no enquin' is pending and the petitioner has been deprived ofthe last pay certificate without any rhyme or reason on the ground that some amount given to tlie Conamittee under the control of the petitioner for golden jubilee celebration is stil' unaccounted, the respondent No. 1 to 3 are directed to issue the last pay certificate to the petitioner withiii a period of 15 days from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. Tlie writ petition is allowed. No ordei- asto costs. 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge