← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/962/2002dismissed

Bila.R'Pur Ksh.Gra..Bank.Kar.San.And ANR. v. Chairman Bsp.Rpr. Kshetriya Gr.Bank Andor

2016-10-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava3 pages

aR'a?s VJ!1^"'"'-^:?!£:^~S @ ^ W.P.No.

-9^2-^2002 Pelitionerfsl:

General Secretary, Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kramchari Sai%h, (Officers Unioa) Reg. No. 3228 2.

General Secretary, Gramin Bank Award Staff Unioa, Bslaspur, Chhattisgarh.

Reg.No. 4234 ^ .^s>-"

<^^-

VERSUS

.fy.^ ^^ GhMFiaa^- Baaspnr Raipur Kshetriya Gramia^Bank (Mi-^AAq^ftwu^ el^i^i^ H.O. Vikas Bhavan, -4we»-tul as />e» 'j Ndiru Chowh. Bilaspur.

<n-'^T- •* *a..'

a»u<-+<l»-4>-&'2.i •^l"

•a.ff. e. 'i-..- 2.

C'hiefGeaefaI Manager, R.R.B. Deptt. Central Office State Bank of India, Mumbai.

3.

Umonoflndia, Ministry ofFinance (Banldng Division) Jeevan Deep BIdg.

Pariiament Street, New Delhi.

'

Tfaroi^h: the Secretary (Fin.) Writ UnderArticles 126 &227 ofthe Constitution ofIndia l/ Particalarsoftheiietitioa:

case title above.

2/ case title above.

^' y ??i?%£i3sffrt5Si;iiiaa atsan«£n

c m rm: m<?HCOIMT w CHHAmsGASH JUDICATURE AT W.P. No. -9^^a^002 General Secretary, fS «-sf>e-Y fey^'y <^} ,y. ^* **•** ^JL &»U>JT <w<^ ^•6-S."2- (ir^jLiil.tjk-^ &S.J?- -^"2- 'i*'

2.

CliiefGenfrraI 3Maaagcr, R.R.B. Deptt. Central Office State Bank of India, Mumbai.

e- ^s3.

Unionoflndia, Miaistry ofFinance (Banking Division) Jeevan Deep Bldg.

ParUament Sfa-eet, New Delhi.

i: the Secretary (Fin.) Writ UnderArticies 226 & 227 ofthe Coastitution ofIndia V Particulars ofttie netition:

i& fhe case tMe aibove.

2/ .

ParticalarsoftheResiMiiident:

•'.r: ,^ As mentioned in the case title above.

/^'

^ NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP^No. 962^f^Q02 Bilaspur Raipur Keshetn'ya Gramin Bank Karmchari Sangh &Anr. -- Petitioner

Versus

Chairman, Bilaspur-Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. -- Respondents For Petitioners For Respondent-Bank None appears Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate S^B.jJlQn^ble^ ShrLJustice^ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava QrdeLQn^oard 19/10/20ie Despite repeated calls, no appearance has been made by the petitioners.

Therefore, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the petition for want ofprosecution.

2. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Fra'/een