Heard Mr. Supehia, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hasurkar, learned advocate for contesting respondent.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court dated 3rd August, 2012. It is agitated that even after maintaining the termination from service, whatever is payable to the petitioner, as reflected in the order dated 3 rd August, 2012, is not received by the petitioner uptill now.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Hasurkar states that whatever payment is to be made, is by the authority, which are not under subordination of respondent company. He further states that some paper work is to be done through the respondent company, but, for that purpose, the petitioner does not cooperate. He intends to elaborate the situation by filing an affidavit and for that purpose, he needs some time.
4. List the matter on 30.01.2013.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) MH Dave/38 Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Fri Jan 22 02:44:18 IST 2016