^'^^^^r^?^^!-^^^^^^!!^^^?^:?^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma Writ Appeal No.198 of 201 1 Appellant versus Respondents Shiv Murthy Singh, S/o Late Kamla Singh, aged abut 62 years, R/o Village Khogapani, Near Police Thana Manedragarh, District Korea (CG) Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L., Hasdeo Area, Jagarakhand Colliery, Post Jagarakhand, Tahsil Manedragarh, District Korea (CG) Deputy Regional Manager, West Jagarakhand SubArea, S.E.C.L., West Jagarakhand, Post Jagrakhand, Tahsit Manedragarh, District Korea (CG) Present: Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, counsel for'the appellant. WritA^eeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act ORAL ORDER (Passedonl 3th June, 2011) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.: Heard on admission. 2. The appellant/petitioner Shiv Murthy Singh has filed this appeal against the order dated 17-2-2011 passed in Writ Petition (S.)No.609/2011. 3. The appellant/petitioner Shiv Murthy Singh filed a writ petition for necessary direction to the respondents to pay his gratuity atong a., ""^. ^ with interest. The said writ petition came-up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 17-2-2011. Before the learned Single Judge, at the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that they are ready to pay the amount of gratuity to the appellant. However, the same could not be released on account of non-production of no-dues certificate as well as vacation ofaccommodation, which was a pre-condition. 4. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by passing the following orders vide paragraphs 3, 4 and 5: "3. Be that as it may, the respondents are directed to calculate the gratuity with interest and make payment to the petitioner. The petitioner may take the cheque within a period of four weeks after producing the no dues certificate and after vacating the accommodation allotted to him by the respondent authorities earlier officially. 4. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of." 5. Dr. Shailesh Ahuj'a, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that imposition of pre-condition of vacating the company's accommodation was not proper. 6. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, particularly, vide paragraph 4, in which, after dictating the above oral-order on the Board, learned counsel for the )0 "~:'^^s^? y appellant/petitioner herself stated that nothing survived in the petition for adjudication, the appellant/petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the said order in this intra-Court appeal. 7. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal. The writ appeal is devoid of merit, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Gopal