[C—78 37T^T ^T fqnl^ TT^TT 3TI^?T 5t)+ll<=t) \- 3^'^TRT^T, ?$Tf1<l4lC, Rl^l'yy t-C'C. 3.'. 'WTCW ^i^- "l '• •^••—•—^—^••"•^ 20(^ a^yr ^^? <44^<tsT) '^iTW^f^T 3P|T^T APPLICANT/: (Petitioner) NON-APPLJCANTS/: (Respondents) P'.S. Rao, S/o Prabhakar Rao. Aged ^bout 75 years, Retired Accountant, Ranpad Panchayat, Katla, District pilaspur, R/o Village Katla, Tahsi! l<orba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh - Vlersus - pirector, Panchayat and Social VVelfare, Bhopat, Madhya Pradesh. py. Director, Panchayat and Social 1/Velfare, Collectorate, Bilaspur, ;hhattjsgarh. 3. 4. pollector, pilaspur. (Application for grant of appropria dated Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Sunil KumarSinha. J 30-1-2008 Mr. Suresh Tandan, counsell Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakifrr, State/non-appltcants No.2 & 3. Heard. Perused the instant M.C.C. ^24th Aprjj. 2007 passed by the then[ <=hl^idAi)tl *ii*i<yiT ^f^'fe^t <^t^i< IR'^fRpT 3TT^T Bilaspur, Collectorate, ^Ianpad Panchayat, K^tla, Tahsil |<orba. District Korba, Chhattisgarh phief Executive Officer, Janpad panchayat Katla, TahsilKorba, District |<orba, Chhattjsgarh te directions and modification of order t4-4-2007) |fbr the applicant. ^r, Depufy Advocate General for the Sled for modification of the order dated IChief Justice of this Court, to the effect jB: [C—78 3T1^T ?^ f^Tli<=h '<T^T ^n^T 5ti^Ict» t, Soma 3:wT??TT?n^T, t!>Tf1<-l4l<o, Pl^l'M^ _-...........!S1.'...<L.:..<L:...^>..: •Rra^ir '^^••••••••••^•"•••^•••••^'•^^••^•^ 200'g 3TT^?T ^^F (4^^<^) ^RTTW^R^T ^TT^T that since no time limitfor decidin^ <=M<ifa41ti +ii*i<yiT '?,f^t <n»i<^i< '^3tRPT3Tl^T the representation ofthe petitioner was fixed in the said order, the petition^r had made representatlon, therefore, a time lliiait be fixed with a djrec<ion to the respondents to declde the representatjon of the petitioner. We have perused the ordei] dated 24th April, 2007. In para 5 of the said order after rejecting the wrfit petition it has been mentioned that "however, liberty is reserved to ttl|e petitioner to claim ftie gratuity before the respondents if permisslble. Orjdered accordingly". There was no order allowing the petitioner to make re^resentation to the respondents and that the respondents to decide the repi|esentation ofthe petltioner. Only liberiy was given to the petitioner to ctairrl gratuity if permissjble. < In view of the above.we ar|e of the opinton that this order does not require any modiflcatjon. Accord|ngly, the M.C.C. is rejected, OT fimine. No orderas to costs. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge