HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR _D_§: Hon‘ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Appellant Petitioner Respondents Vinod Kumar Lall, Aged - 62 years, S/o. Shri Vipin Lall, Retired- Forest Ranger, at lndrawati Tiger Reserve, Beejapur, District West Bastar (Beejapur). R/o. 31,, MIG, Tatiband, Raipur District Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Territorial), Chhattisgarh, H.S. Aranya Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh Shri Arun Kumar Divisionai Forest Ofhcer, Forest Division, Beejapur, district West Bastar (Beejapur) Writ Appeal under Section 2g1) of the Chhattmigarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench), Act, 2006. Present: Shri R.K. Kesharwani, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State! respondents 1 & 2. Heard. ORAL ORDER (1 2 .082011 .) 2. Learned counSel for the appellant suhmits that three departmental enquiries were pending against the appellant. Therefore, even after his superannuation on 30.9.2007, his retiremental benefits were withheld. When there was no progress in the enquiries, the appellant tiled Writ Petition (S) No. 1468/2008. Writ Appear No.35312011 versus 1 . 2 W.A. No.353/201 1 The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure-P/7 in the writ petition) and it was directed vide para 5 of the order to the respondent authoritgi'es to conciude the enquiries as early as possible, preferabiy within a period of four months and thereafter, take appropriate action in accordance with the law. When the departmental enquiries were not concluded within the said period, the appellant again tiled WP (S) No.3722/11, mainly for quashing the proceedings of departmental enquiries and also for grant of consequential benefits after quashing the departmental proceedings. The leamed Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that merely on the ground that the earlier direction of this Court was not complied with, the departmental enquiries cannot be quashed. 4 3. Shri Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that under the provisions of Rule 9 (4)(b) of MP (CG) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the pensionLJVithhold on account of pendency of departmental enquiry should have been restored in favour of the appellant, but the same has not‘been done. He further submits that presently he may be permitted to withdraw the writ appeal with liberty to tile representation before the concerned authority regarding restoration of the pension and other benefits of . the appellant under Rule 9(4)(b) of the aforesaid Rules 1976, and with further liberty to agitate the above matter before the appropriate forum if the grievances are not redressed after tiling of the representation. J d. Permission granted. x