1 2025:CGHC:5671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 90 of 2025 1 - The Secretary Gram Seva Samiti Jail Road Katchhary Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indra Shekhar Tripathi S/o Ram Kripal Tripathi Aged About 75 Years R/o Khanna Choraha, Near Ramila Ground, Ghoghar Rewa Madhya Pradesh 2 - Commissioner Provident Fund Office, Block-D, Scheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Parisar, New Bus Stand, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate and Mr. Dhirendra Mishra, Advcoate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 30.01.2025 1. This MCC has been filed by the applicant/petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.04.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3512 of 2012 in which the petitioner (Respondent No.2/The Secretary Gram Seva Samiti in Writ Petition (S) No.3512 of 2012) was directed to pay while retiral dues to Respondent No.1 (Petitioner in Writ Petition (S) No.3512 of 2012) the said order is annexed with this petition as Annexure P/1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had preferred a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court bearing 2 W.A. No.418 of 2024 which was dismissed on 04.07.2024 (Annexure P/2). Against the order of writ appeal the petitioner preferred the Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court bearing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 51554/2024 stands dismissed at admission stage on 18.11.2024. He further submits that the petitioner/Respondent No.2 wants to comply the order of this Court but the Respondent No.1 had made wrong submission before this Court that ‘he had joined the services on 19.03.2009’ but the true fact is that the Respondent No.1 had never joined services of the petitioner from his suspension w.e.f. 08.03.2022 till attaining the age of superannuation. A letter dated 06.10.2009 (Annexure P/4) issued to Respondent No.1 stated that Respondent No.1 has neither reported for work from the order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Raipur till the date of issuance of the letter i.e. 06.10.2009 nor he submitted any affidavit regarding not being employed elsewhere. Prior to decision of Labour Court the Respondent No.1 was never reported office of the Petitioner i.e. Gram Seva Samiti even after been asked to join/report at their Rewa Branch, which is his native place, hence he was discharges from the service vide order dated 13.06.2005 (Annexure P/5). Therefore, he submits that in submission of petitioner/respondent No.1 in order dated 03.04.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3512 of 2012 Paragraph 4 “The petitioner joined the office on 19.03.2009” may be expunged. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer of petitioner and submits that this petitioner is not maintainable because the petitioner has filed an appeal and also SLP against the impugned order which were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and by 3 the Hon’ble Apex Court on 04.07.2024 & 18.11.2024 respectively. Now, petitioner/respondent No.2 wants modification in the impugned order which is not permissible, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. This petition was filed for expunge the observation of this Court given in impugned order passed by this Court on 03.04.2024 but it is made clear from para 4 of impugned order that this Court observed the submission of counsel for Respondent No.1/petitioner (Indra Shekhar Tripathi) then in Paras 5 & 6 this Court recorded the Submission of Respondent No.2/Respondent No.1 (Commissioner Provident Fund Office) then in Para 7 submission of petitioner/Respondent No.2 (The Secretary Gram Seva Samiti) and thereafter this Court passed an order from Paragraphs 9 to 12. 6. On the basis of material available on records, considering the arguments of both counsel for the parties and after observing guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is made clear that in Para 4 this Court does not express any of its view, this para is about the argument of petitioner/Respondent No.1 counsel so this Petition is without merits. 7. Accordingly, this MCC is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA